Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Who Is Your Creator message forum
This Forum is Locked
Author
Comment
MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History

MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History


Mothra is of course a character in Japanese monster movies, but as mythical moths go Darwin’s enablers came up with their own moth myth first. For comparison, let us start with the vital facts on Mothra:

Mothra

Species: Divine Moth

Alias: The Thing
Form(s): Larval Form
Adult Form
Length: Larval form 30-120 meters
Adult form 24-65 meters

Weight: Larval form 8,000-16,500 tons
Adult form 15,000-22,000 tons

Wingspan: 75-175 meters

Air speed: Mach 3-80

Relationships Shobijin (Priestesses)
Battra (Dark twin in Godzilla vs. Mothra)
Mothra Leo (Son in Rebirth of Mothra)

Major enemies Godzilla
King Ghidorah
Battra
Death Ghidorah
Gigan

Major Allies Godzilla
Rodan
Miki Saegusa
Baragon

-Source: Wiki

A pretty impressive moth, one must admit. But in the “real” moth world, Darwin’s humanist apologists, while slyly pushing their religion on the unsuspecting, are ever ready to grab onto any lie that will promote their cleverly-devised fable. Such is the case with the peppered moths, used for generations in biology textbooks as a prime example of evolution. Pale-peppered moths in Britain supposedly changed to black and back to pale-peppered in response to the ebb and flow of industrial pollution. The problem is it never occurred the way it was written about and especially the way it was deviously pictured. (Ah, yes, the devious pictures, always the devious pictures).

First, the photos of the moths on tree trunks were staged. They were variously glued on and pinned in place on the trunks, which changed from light to dark in response to black soot in the air. Why is that important? Because in nature these moths almost never rested on tree trunks, they rested on the undersides of leaves where they were not likely to be seen by predator birds! The tree trunk colors were irrelevant in the context of what was being promoted. In later experiments, the moths were deliberately placed in unnatural positions on the trunks which the birds merely took advantage of for a free meal. But it was all designed for human consumption, had nothing to do with the natural order as was being deceptively portrayed, and in reality was pure, dishonest propaganda. (And what, pray tell, does dishonest propaganda have to do with any genuine scientific process?).

Gould alludes to this pathetic "scientific" joke as just more “proof” evolution is a fact (see “Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1994, 13th paragraph), yet when examined more closely, it is shown to be simply another "Just So" story disguised as science. (You will note that the story is being quietly moth-balled as the truth gets out).

It may come as a surprise, but Darwin considered embryos, not fossils, to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory (as quoted in the “PIG Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” page 25). Falling in step with the party line in the 1860’s, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some vertebrate embryo drawings which distorted the views of German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who objected to the concept that “the various classes of vertebrates…were descended from a common ancestor.” –ibid, page 26. These fake drawings were used in millions and millions of textbooks and are still in use today in some, in spite of the fact that they are known to be falsified, all to promote a total lie.

Even the aforementioned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in 2000 labeled Haeckel’s embryo drawings “fraudulent” and wrote: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” –ibid, page 28.

All of the forgoing barely scratches the surface of evolutionist fakery, and proves what Einstein said of pseudo scientists: “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” These pseudo scientists have been doing just that from the dawn of Darwinism. At least in a movie about Mothra, we know our leg is being pulled. With the unprovable myth of Darwinism presented as fact, generations of humans are being morally-stunted by a joke, a lie and a moth-eaten myth being pawned off as reality, and they are being deliberately led to believe there is air-tight evidence for something that is simply not true.

Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question.

One thing at a time: The Peppered Moth Story

Some background about peppered moths is necessary. The common form of this moth species is pale gray. About 150 years ago, a black specimen was discovered near an industrial city in England. Over the years, the black (melanic) form became ever more common as the pale form became rare. By 1900 the black form exceeded 90 percent in peppered moth populations throughout the industrialized regions of England. The phenomenon was dubbed industrial melanism.

Because people knew that birds eat insects, scientists as early as 1896 suspected that birds were eating the different color forms of peppered moths selectively based on their degree of conspicuousness in habitats variously blackened by industrial soot. Extensive experimental work supports this view, although questions remain. Other scientists proposed that moths responded to the presence of pollutants by developing darker body colors. We now know from genetic analysis that the colors of adult peppered moths are determined by genes; thus, the changes in the percentages of pale to black moths over generations reflect changes in the genetic makeup of moth populations.

As industrial practices have changed in many regions, we have observed black moths plummet from 90 percent to 10 percent in the just the past few decades. Once again, we have observed significant genetic changes occur in moth populations. Evolution is defined at the operational level as genetic change over time, so this is evolution. Of the several factors known to produce evolutionary change, only natural selection is consistent with the patterns of the changes we see occurring in moth populations. Evolution examined at this level is as well established as any fact in science.

Dr. Jonathan Wells is the source of this original misinformation. While he has done no work on industrial melanism, he has written opinion about the work. To one outside the field, he passes as a scholar, complete with Ph.D. Unfortunately, Dr. Wells is intellectually dishonest. He was intentionally distorting the literature in the field. He lavishly dresses his essays in quotations from experts which are generally taken out of context, and he systematically omits relevant details to make conclusions seem ill founded, flawed, or fraudulent. Why does he do this? Is his goal to correct science through constructive criticism, or does he a have a different agenda? He never mentions creationism in any form. To be sure, he sticks to the scientific literature, but he misrepresents it. Perhaps it might be kinder to suggest that Wells is simply incompetent, but I think his errors are by intelligent design.

Re: One thing at a time: The Peppered Moth Story

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I will get back to you tomorrow.

Secondly: Moths being "placed" on tree trunks

In terms of the moths being placed on tree trunks being "deceptively protrayed" and thusly "propaganda", here is the data from Majerus "Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action" (1998, p. 123)

---

From Table 6.1, "The resting positions of peppered moths found in the wild between 1964 and 1996"

Trunk/branch joint = 42.6%
Branches = 31.9%
Exposed trunk = 12.8%
Unexposed trunk = 12.8%

From Table 6.2, "The resting positions of peppered moths found in the visinity of mercury vapour moth traps at various locations, between 1965 and 1996"

Trunk/branch joint = 32.5%
Exposed trunk = 23.6%
Unexposed trunk = 10.8%
Man-made surfaces = 12.3%
Foliage = 10.8%
Branches = 9.9%

---

So if you do the calculation based on the observations, you will find that a significant number of the moths (at least more than half) were found on exposed parts of trees, and to say that it is not part of the "natural order" is unfounded, and a clear distortion of what the research actually shows.

Lying with Statistics; Send Darwin Packing

Really, akg, you're going to have to do better than that:


Moth-eaten Statistics

Re-enter Michael Majerus. According to an August 25 story in The Independent (London), Majerus has “spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.”21

In his August 23 lecture, Majerus summarized his results as follows:

“I have had occasion to spend time carefully scrutinizing the trunks, branches and twigs of a limited set of trees at the experimental site. During this time I have found 135 peppered moths, resting in what I have no reason to presume are not their freely chosen natural resting sites…

i) The majority (50.4%) of moths rest on lateral branches.
ii) Of the moths on lateral branches, the majority (89%) rest on the lower half of the branch.
iii) A significant proportion of moths (37%) do rest on tree trunks (so Kettlewell wasn’t so wrong in releasing his moths onto tree trunks)…”

Majerus concludes: “While the results may be somewhat biased towards lower parts of the tree, due to sampling technique, I believe that they give the best field evidence that we have to date of where peppered moths spend the day.”22

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

In the seven years during which Majerus was peering out his window, far more than 135 peppered moths visited his back yard, but (as previous research showed) he couldn’t see most of them because they were resting high in the upper branches of his trees. Those he could see from the ground represented only a tiny fraction of the total.

In his 1954 classic, How To Lie With Statistics, Darrell Huff devoted his first chapter to sampling bias. He wrote: “The test of the random sample is this: Does every name or thing in the whole group have an equal chance to be in the sample?”23 Obviously, the vast majority of peppered moths were NOT in Majerus’s sample because they were resting where he couldn’t see them. Yet the very question he set out to answer was where they rest! If Huff were writing his book today, he might well use Majerus’s statistic as an egregious example of sampling bias.

It’s because of flawed “evidence” like this that the peppered myth was buried in the first place. R. I. P.



This from your nemesis, one Jonathan Wells, "EXUMING THE PEPPERED MUMMY," published and found at www.discovery.org. (caps mine)

Have you forgotten your Shakespeare? Nothing can come from nothing. It never has, and it never will. And more, we don't believe you, because we see through the lies. Even the gullible rubes are starting to see through it. It is time to send the sorcerer Darwin and his ilk packing, back across the pond.

What you are promoting is poor religion and bad science, nothing more. Learn how to bring forth the precious from the vile, and you will be a better man for it.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

In terms of the moths being placed on tree trunks being "deceptively protrayed" and thusly "propaganda", here is the data from Majerus "Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action" (1998, p. 123)

---

From Table 6.1, "The resting positions of peppered moths found in the wild between 1964 and 1996"

Trunk/branch joint = 42.6%
Branches = 31.9%
Exposed trunk = 12.8%
Unexposed trunk = 12.8%

From Table 6.2, "The resting positions of peppered moths found in the visinity of mercury vapour moth traps at various locations, between 1965 and 1996"

Trunk/branch joint = 32.5%
Exposed trunk = 23.6%
Unexposed trunk = 10.8%
Man-made surfaces = 12.3%
Foliage = 10.8%
Branches = 9.9%

---

So if you do the calculation based on the observations, you will find that a significant number of the moths (at least more than half) were found on exposed parts of trees, and to say that it is not part of the "natural order" is unfounded, and a clear distortion of what the research actually shows.

It is YOU who is going to have to do a better job, John

Well, John, you've done a very colorful job of painting a few logical fallacies here:

---
In the seven years during which Majerus was peering out his window, far more than 135 peppered moths visited his back yard, but (as previous research showed) he couldn’t see most of them because they were resting high in the upper branches of his trees. Those he could see from the ground represented only a tiny fraction of the total.
---

Where did you get the information that "most of them were resting high in the upper branches"? What "previous research"? Majerus noted only these two things:

1. "resting in what I have no reason to presume are not their freely chosen natural resting sites"

2. "While the results may be somewhat biased towards lower parts of the tree, due to sampling technique"

There is nothing here that says MOST of the moths were in the upper branches, and in fact Majerus ADMITS to a small sampling bias. If it were enough to stilt the results, he would have come forth with it.

And where do you get YOUR scientific evidence that MOST of the moths are in the upper branches? I'VE presented a scientific paper - where is yours?

---
Obviously, the vast majority of peppered moths were NOT in Majerus’s sample because they were resting where he couldn’t see them.
---

"Obvious"? "Vast majority"? "Tiny fraction of the total"? Where is your (forum-required) scientific proof of these statements? Or did you just make these up?

You really must stop using colorful words and start backing yourself up with some studies, papers, or other evidence rather than arguments from personal incredulity, John. I admit you're a powerful writer, you could probably write very powerful sermon-- but you're stepping all over logic to come to your conclusions, and in the face of science it just doesn't fly.

Now, Let Me Get This Straight

Where did Wells get the information that the moths were resting on branches? Hmmm, let's see. I know, try reading this:


According to Michael Majerus, a Cambridge University expert on the moth,
Dr Kettlewell tried to confirm the standard story simply by pinning dead
moths on to parts of the trees where they could be seen easily by birds.
Dr Majerus said: "He stuck them on low branches because he wanted to sit
in his hide and watch them being eaten. THEY ACTUALLY SEEM TO REST IN THE SHADOWS UNDER THE BRANCHES, which makes even the black ones difficult to
spot by birds." [caps mine]


Scientists are now beginning to doubt even the basic presumption that
birds were responsible for the changing fortunes of the different types
of Biston.


According to Prof Jerry Coyne, an expert on evolution at the University
of Chicago, when Dr Kettlewell could not get the moths he needed
naturally, HE BRED THEM ON IS LABORATORY. [caps mine]


Prof Coyne said: "That could affect their vigour, so the level of bird
predation he saw was just due to the fact that his moths were RAISED IN THE LAB. In one case, Kettlewell actually used to warm them up on the
bonnet of his car."


Prof Coyne insisted, however, that the moths are almost certainly an
example of natural selection: "I'm certainly not saying Darwin is wrong.
The real cause is probably connected with pollution - but beyond that I
wouldn't want to go." He said, however, that Dr Kettlewell's
widely-quoted experiments are ESSENTIALLY USELESS. "There is a lot of
wishful thinking and design flaws in them, and they wouldn't get
published today."

Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent, "Scientists pick holes in Darwin moth theory."



So we see that Dr. Majerus himself suggests that they actually seem to rest in the shadows under branches. As for his "experiment," now let me get this straight. The man scopes out the moths from his study window, "armed with a telescope and a notepad," according to "The Independent, (London)." He carries on this peculiarly-run experiment for 7 whole years, and in all that time, he sees only 135 moths.

So, we have 7 years x 12 months = 84 months, and only 135 moths were even seen, at a distance, using a telescope. That works out to 1.6 moths PER MONTH!

Gee, what a rigorous experiment--NOT!

Pardon me for injecting a little common sense here, but HOW IN THE WORLD WOULD THE MAN EVEN KNOW IF THERE WERE MOTHS ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE TREES!!! He was too all-fired LAZY to get off his duff and get out into the field to ascertain with his own eyes the actual count and where they were and WERE NOT located. Here are just a few examples of variables not taken into account: The entire backs of the trees were not examined, the sun angles and air temperatures during different parts of the day are unknown for comparison, and other animals in the vicinity scaring off the moths or affecting their landing/resting patterns are also not known.

But Majerus would hardly know any of this, since he was too busy sipping tea and eating crumpets in his cozy little study, using a telescope. Therefore extrapolation is impossible due to narrow parameters and small sample size.

The very most one could say of the "study," is that those figures are true for the field behind his house, and only from his limited vantage point. And that is being generous. How anyone could call that a "scientific study" that applies anywhere else is beyond me.

I have heard of sloppy, lazy experiments before, but this just about takes the cake. Are we supposed to be impressed with this slipshod JOKE because the vaunted Michael Majerus "conducted" it?

This is weak-minded and pathetic in the extreme. Just pitiful. It is not even limping as a valid experiment with all variables accounted for, it is crawling like a helpless worm. A "scientific paper" my eye.

But this does not even answer the basic question, that even if all of it were true, which it is not, SO WHAT? It proves nothing, except what we all concede to, that nature (or supposedly man in this case) provides various forces which act on organisms, which in turn adapt. That the process was unguided in this case is also irrelevant. This is merely micro-evolution, which has been observed and known about for centuries. It does nothing to change the basic fact that no living thing has ever self-created, much less transformed into an entirely different creature, and it never will. There are no examples of that anywhere in all of nature. That is magical thinking, and need I point out? Magical thinking is fine but only for the Magical Mystery Tour, NOT science.

Can you somehow manage to wrap your mind around that concept? Or do you need a "scientific paper" to do your thinking for you?

If this is all you have you are in serious trouble. Don't make me laugh!

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Well, John, you've done a very colorful job of painting a few logical fallacies here:

---
In the seven years during which Majerus was peering out his window, far more than 135 peppered moths visited his back yard, but (as previous research showed) he couldn’t see most of them because they were resting high in the upper branches of his trees. Those he could see from the ground represented only a tiny fraction of the total.
---

Where did you get the information that "most of them were resting high in the upper branches"? What "previous research"? Majerus noted only these two things:

1. "resting in what I have no reason to presume are not their freely chosen natural resting sites"

2. "While the results may be somewhat biased towards lower parts of the tree, due to sampling technique"

There is nothing here that says MOST of the moths were in the upper branches, and in fact Majerus ADMITS to a small sampling bias. If it were enough to stilt the results, he would have come forth with it.

And where do you get YOUR scientific evidence that MOST of the moths are in the upper branches? I'VE presented a scientific paper - where is yours?

---
Obviously, the vast majority of peppered moths were NOT in Majerus’s sample because they were resting where he couldn’t see them.
---

"Obvious"? "Vast majority"? "Tiny fraction of the total"? Where is your (forum-required) scientific proof of these statements? Or did you just make these up?

You really must stop using colorful words and start backing yourself up with some studies, papers, or other evidence rather than arguments from personal incredulity, John. I admit you're a powerful writer, you could probably write very powerful sermon-- but you're stepping all over logic to come to your conclusions, and in the face of science it just doesn't fly.

Misread & misinterpreted

----
1. The line with regard to "135 moths" is actually as follows:

"In the seven years during which Majerus was peering out his window, FAR MORE than 135 peppered moths visited his back yard..."

The "135 moth" value is from the Kettlewell experiment, not Majerus'. So your argument there is no good.

----
2. "Viewing with a telecope"

How do you think biologists look at moths? If you get within a short distance of them they would flutter away. Looking at them from a distance keeps the observer out of the natural habitat so it is seen for what it is, not adding the disturbance of a viewer.

----
3. Coyne's review

From the research I'm finding, it seems like Coyne's review of Majerus' work was not accepted real well:

…. ‘I finally became fed up with this newest creationist claim, and the fact that no one seemed to refer to the actual book upon which Coyne’s review was based, but simply to the review itself. To evaluate the situation I located the seemingly notorious book by Majerus at UC Riverside.
…. ‘I opened Majerus’s book anticipating a bashing for Kettlewell. ….From twenty years of reading anti-pollution literature, as well as advocacy of non-mainstream science views, I think I can pretty often see the attack coming in the form of qualifying with “supposed evidence”, etc. and confrontational discussions throughout the text. I expected this from Majerus.
…. ‘Throughout the chapter “The Peppered Moth Story”, Majerus gives not the slightest hint of the bomb I was waiting for. His discussion of Kettlewell’s experiments, and those of others, are so fairly and complimentarily done that I was amazed at the thought that he was about to destroy it all. ….How was Majerus going to unhinge the discussion in “The Peppered Moth Story Dissected”? And why did he lead his readers on so cruelly without a hint that they were being given trash data? I read to the end of the second chapter like it was a whodoneit.
…. ‘If you’re waiting for the punch line, here it is. There is essentially no resemblance between Majerus’s and Coyne’s review of it. If you pick through the book, you might be able to argue for Coyne’s accuracy – but only at the expense of completely ignoring the majority of the text and all of Majerus’s intent. If I hadn’t known differently, I would have thought the review was of some other book.’

- Donald Frack

So your using Coyne as a source for the methods and details of Majerus' work seems to be dodgy at best. Why not read Majerus' work directly, John?

---
4. So what?!?

Why are you discarding this whole argument as "so what? it proves nothing..." when you were the one attempting to mock it in the first place.

"This is merely micro-evolution, which has been observed and known about for centuries." -John

Ah, so now the real argument is "micro-evolution" versus "macro-evolution", not "the peppered moth story is bunk"? Well then let's focus this debate on that platform, shall we? ...since this one apparently means nothing to you.

---
5. Further reading:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-218774.html
- a short forum post noting not only your sources for your arguments (The Discovery Institute), but refutations for all of it...

http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Darwiniandisciple.doc
- a talk given by Majerus on Darwin Day where he explains IN DETAIL this whole situation and what had been taken out of context and misinterpreted and misread by creationists, and how he ACTUALLY conducted his experiments (addressing some of your concerns about the methods of obervation done in the experiments - you need to know more about moths and their behavior before saying his experimental methods were faulty).

Talk About Unclear on the Concept...

Re my statement that Majerus spotted only 135 moths during his study, you erroneously write that the "135 moth" value is from Kettlewell's experiment, and to make it worse, you actually quote your nemesis, one J. Wells:

"In the seven years during which Majerus was peering out his window, FAR MORE than 135 peppered moths visited his back yard..."

Do you have the slightest clue about what you are even talking about? That quote you gave is Wells showing how INEPT Majerus's research is, and how he is using statistics to LIE. Let me show you the statement in context:

"What's wrong with this picture?

"In the seven years during which Majerus is peering out his window, far more than 135 peppered moths visited his back yard, but (as previous research showed) he couldn't see most of them because they were resting high in the upper branches of his trees. Those he could see from the ground represented only a tiny fraction of the total.

"In his 1954 classic, HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS, Darrell Huff devoted his first chapter to SAMPLING BIAS. He wrote: 'The test of the random sample is this: Does every name or thing in the group have an equal chance to be in the sample?' Obviously, the VAST MAJORITY of peppered moths were NOT in Majerus's sample BECAUSE THEY WERE RESTING WHERE HE COULDN'T SEE THEM. Yet the very question he set out to answer was WHERE THEY REST. If Huff were writing his book today, he might well use Majerus's statistics as an egregious example of SAMPLING BIAS."

-EXHUMING THE PEPPERED MUMMY, by Jonathan Wells, Discovery Institute, August 30, 2007

Do you understand? You are using a quote OUT OF CONTEXT, from a man you despise, to "prove" a point which is invalid. The point in the quote you misused, does not prove that Majerus spotted FAR MORE than 135 moths. It proves that though there we FAR MORE than 135 moths in seven years, they were resting high in the upper branches of his trees, but were deliberately IGNORED by Majerus.

The quote you used demonstrates that Majerus used his "study" to ignore the far greater population density of the moths in the upper branches, but chose instead to focus ONLY on what he could see on the ground, which "represented only a tiny fraction of the total."

In other words, Wells is plainly saying, in the quote YOU use, that Majerus is sourcing only a small sample of the actual moth population, because he only wants to find them toward the bottom, to fraudulently prove his point. It is called SAMPLING BIAS. Is that getting through to you?

It is called cherry picking, I believe, but with study samples in this case, to weigh the results toward a desired outcome. Another word for it would be CHEATING, and it is NOT science, just more LIES on top of LIES on top of LIES.

Clear enough?

As for the "135 peppered moth" figure, and your remark that I should "read Majerus' work directly," here is a quote from that paper at Darwiniandisciple:

PP 28 During the main predation experiment, I have chosen to spend time carefully scrutinizing the trunks, branches and twigs of a limited set of trees at the experimental site. During this time I HAVE FOUND 135 PEPPERED MOTHS, resting in what I have no reason to presume are not their freely chosen natural resting sites.

Do you have any questions as to where the "135 moth" figure came from? You said it was from Kettlewell. If so, show me where. You can't because it isn't.

You don't even know your own literature.

I have more to say, but I will do so later, hoping against hope that what I have said will SOMEHOW, SOME WAY, sink in.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

----
1. The line with regard to "135 moths" is actually as follows:

"In the seven years during which Majerus was peering out his window, FAR MORE than 135 peppered moths visited his back yard..."

The "135 moth" value is from the Kettlewell experiment, not Majerus'. So your argument there is no good.

----
2. "Viewing with a telecope"

How do you think biologists look at moths? If you get within a short distance of them they would flutter away. Looking at them from a distance keeps the observer out of the natural habitat so it is seen for what it is, not adding the disturbance of a viewer.

----
3. Coyne's review

From the research I'm finding, it seems like Coyne's review of Majerus' work was not accepted real well:

…. ‘I finally became fed up with this newest creationist claim, and the fact that no one seemed to refer to the actual book upon which Coyne’s review was based, but simply to the review itself. To evaluate the situation I located the seemingly notorious book by Majerus at UC Riverside.
…. ‘I opened Majerus’s book anticipating a bashing for Kettlewell. ….From twenty years of reading anti-pollution literature, as well as advocacy of non-mainstream science views, I think I can pretty often see the attack coming in the form of qualifying with “supposed evidence”, etc. and confrontational discussions throughout the text. I expected this from Majerus.
…. ‘Throughout the chapter “The Peppered Moth Story”, Majerus gives not the slightest hint of the bomb I was waiting for. His discussion of Kettlewell’s experiments, and those of others, are so fairly and complimentarily done that I was amazed at the thought that he was about to destroy it all. ….How was Majerus going to unhinge the discussion in “The Peppered Moth Story Dissected”? And why did he lead his readers on so cruelly without a hint that they were being given trash data? I read to the end of the second chapter like it was a whodoneit.
…. ‘If you’re waiting for the punch line, here it is. There is essentially no resemblance between Majerus’s and Coyne’s review of it. If you pick through the book, you might be able to argue for Coyne’s accuracy – but only at the expense of completely ignoring the majority of the text and all of Majerus’s intent. If I hadn’t known differently, I would have thought the review was of some other book.’

- Donald Frack

So your using Coyne as a source for the methods and details of Majerus' work seems to be dodgy at best. Why not read Majerus' work directly, John?

---
4. So what?!?

Why are you discarding this whole argument as "so what? it proves nothing..." when you were the one attempting to mock it in the first place.

"This is merely micro-evolution, which has been observed and known about for centuries." -John

Ah, so now the real argument is "micro-evolution" versus "macro-evolution", not "the peppered moth story is bunk"? Well then let's focus this debate on that platform, shall we? ...since this one apparently means nothing to you.

---
5. Further reading:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/archive/index.php/t-218774.html
- a short forum post noting not only your sources for your arguments (The Discovery Institute), but refutations for all of it...

http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/Majerus/Darwiniandisciple.doc
- a talk given by Majerus on Darwin Day where he explains IN DETAIL this whole situation and what had been taken out of context and misinterpreted and misread by creationists, and how he ACTUALLY conducted his experiments (addressing some of your concerns about the methods of obervation done in the experiments - you need to know more about moths and their behavior before saying his experimental methods were faulty).

Natural Selection and Body Plan/Genetic Limits

Re your point number 4 (Misread and misinterpreted) as to my dismissive remark that even if Kettlewell and Majerus were and are completely correct with their deeply flawed studies, it proves nothing about Darwinian evolution, here is a germane comment from www.uncommondescent.com:


Majerus is unlikely to persuade skeptical evolutionary biologists that the peppered moth story, even when told with Kettlewell’s shortcomings corrected, is a good model for evolutionary theory generally. Twenty years ago, well prior to the hubbub about the peppered moth (started in large measure by Majerus himself), evolutionary geneticist Wallace Arthur doubted that industrial melanism — observed in many other taxa besides moths, by the way — provided much, or any, insight into the problem of macroevolution:

There is much current debate on whether the ‘micro-evolutionary’ studies of population geneticists, which deal with minor evolutionary changes occurring within present-day species, provides the whole story (or even an important part of the story) of ‘macroevolution’….equally one can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan — black Biston betularia [melanic moths] certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate.

(W. Arthur, Theories of Life [Penguin, 1987], pp. 156, 180)

Arthur’s skepticism, like that of many other evolutionary biologists, has only grown in the intervening period.


I repeat: "THUS IN THE END WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW HOW BODY PLANS ORIGINATE."

Wells comments:

"Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of the Species, because he thought he had discovered the mechanism whereby unguided natural processes could produce not only new species, BUT ALSO NEW ORGANS AND BODY PLANS. Yet no one HAS EVER DOCUMENTED THE ORIGIN OF A SINGLE SPECIES by Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection.

"University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001: 'None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.'"

He goes on to point out that, as the simplest form of independent life, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and 150 years of study, no evidence of species change at such an elementary level pretty much obviates the theory of transmutation of any species.

And here is the clincher:

"Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportion of two varieties in a preexisting species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place."

It is reported that Kettelwell committed suicide, after he was denied election as a Fellow of the Royal Society for a third time. Majerus may have permanently damaged his credentials as a reliable expert with his questionable study, if the charge of sampling bias can be shown to be credible, and all for what? Merely to balance yet another lie on top of another lie?

Everyone on this board concedes that both natural and artificial selection occur. What is at play here is this proposition: Can such a process lead to a new and different body plan? All evidence shows that it cannot.

Darwinism is a religion and a poor one at that. It is actually a cult, disguised as science. But the veneer is wearing thin, and for those who swear allegiance at all cost, can Kool Aide drinking be far behind?

You are on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of reality, akg. Get out while you still can.

Re: Natural Selection and Body Plan/Genetic Limits

"Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of the Species, because he thought he had discovered the mechanism whereby unguided natural processes could produce not only new species, BUT ALSO NEW ORGANS AND BODY PLANS. Yet no one HAS EVER DOCUMENTED THE ORIGIN OF A SINGLE SPECIES by Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection."

A lie. There have been many recorded events of speciation. Creationists not only accept this now, but in fact base their entire Flood Model on it.

"He goes on to point out that, as the simplest form of independent life, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and 150 years of study, no evidence of species change at such an elementary level pretty much obviates the theory of transmutation of any species."

The fruit fly experiments? Those deal mainly with hox genes, showing that small mutations can cause a big change.

"Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportion of two varieties in a preexisting species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place."

Yes, which is why it was evidence of NATURAL SELECTION. The genetic mutations to cause the variation are another thing all together.

"Everyone on this board concedes that both natural and artificial selection occur. What is at play here is this proposition: Can such a process lead to a new and different body plan? All evidence shows that it cannot."

Another lie. Mutations have cause many changes to the body plan of organisms.

"Darwinism is a religion and a poor one at that. It is actually a cult, disguised as science. But the veneer is wearing thin, and for those who swear allegiance at all cost, can Kool Aide drinking be far behind?"

Care to explain how it is a religion? I've asked many creationists on ths board, but none could exlpain that one to me.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Re your point number 4 (Misread and misinterpreted) as to my dismissive remark that even if Kettlewell and Majerus were and are completely correct with their deeply flawed studies, it proves nothing about Darwinian evolution, here is a germane comment from www.uncommondescent.com:


Majerus is unlikely to persuade skeptical evolutionary biologists that the peppered moth story, even when told with Kettlewell’s shortcomings corrected, is a good model for evolutionary theory generally. Twenty years ago, well prior to the hubbub about the peppered moth (started in large measure by Majerus himself), evolutionary geneticist Wallace Arthur doubted that industrial melanism — observed in many other taxa besides moths, by the way — provided much, or any, insight into the problem of macroevolution:

There is much current debate on whether the ‘micro-evolutionary’ studies of population geneticists, which deal with minor evolutionary changes occurring within present-day species, provides the whole story (or even an important part of the story) of ‘macroevolution’….equally one can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan — black Biston betularia [melanic moths] certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate.

(W. Arthur, Theories of Life [Penguin, 1987], pp. 156, 180)

Arthur’s skepticism, like that of many other evolutionary biologists, has only grown in the intervening period.


I repeat: "THUS IN THE END WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW HOW BODY PLANS ORIGINATE."

Wells comments:

"Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of the Species, because he thought he had discovered the mechanism whereby unguided natural processes could produce not only new species, BUT ALSO NEW ORGANS AND BODY PLANS. Yet no one HAS EVER DOCUMENTED THE ORIGIN OF A SINGLE SPECIES by Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection.

"University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001: 'None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.'"

He goes on to point out that, as the simplest form of independent life, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and 150 years of study, no evidence of species change at such an elementary level pretty much obviates the theory of transmutation of any species.

And here is the clincher:

"Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportion of two varieties in a preexisting species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place."

It is reported that Kettelwell committed suicide, after he was denied election as a Fellow of the Royal Society for a third time. Majerus may have permanently damaged his credentials as a reliable expert with his questionable study, if the charge of sampling bias can be shown to be credible, and all for what? Merely to balance yet another lie on top of another lie?

Everyone on this board concedes that both natural and artificial selection occur. What is at play here is this proposition: Can such a process lead to a new and different body plan? All evidence shows that it cannot.

Darwinism is a religion and a poor one at that. It is actually a cult, disguised as science. But the veneer is wearing thin, and for those who swear allegiance at all cost, can Kool Aide drinking be far behind?

You are on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of reality, akg. Get out while you still can.

Genetic Limits

1. Please provide your proof that mutations and natural selection can produce unlimited change and evolve new body parts/organs never seen before in that organism.

2. Please provide proof of a fluit fly turning into anything but another fruit fly. Or just what do you consider a "big change"?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of the Species, because he thought he had discovered the mechanism whereby unguided natural processes could produce not only new species, BUT ALSO NEW ORGANS AND BODY PLANS. Yet no one HAS EVER DOCUMENTED THE ORIGIN OF A SINGLE SPECIES by Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection."

A lie. There have been many recorded events of speciation. Creationists not only accept this now, but in fact base their entire Flood Model on it.

"He goes on to point out that, as the simplest form of independent life, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and 150 years of study, no evidence of species change at such an elementary level pretty much obviates the theory of transmutation of any species."

The fruit fly experiments? Those deal mainly with hox genes, showing that small mutations can cause a big change.

"Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportion of two varieties in a preexisting species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place."

Yes, which is why it was evidence of NATURAL SELECTION. The genetic mutations to cause the variation are another thing all together.

"Everyone on this board concedes that both natural and artificial selection occur. What is at play here is this proposition: Can such a process lead to a new and different body plan? All evidence shows that it cannot."

Another lie. Mutations have cause many changes to the body plan of organisms.

"Darwinism is a religion and a poor one at that. It is actually a cult, disguised as science. But the veneer is wearing thin, and for those who swear allegiance at all cost, can Kool Aide drinking be far behind?"

Care to explain how it is a religion? I've asked many creationists on ths board, but none could exlpain that one to me.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Re your point number 4 (Misread and misinterpreted) as to my dismissive remark that even if Kettlewell and Majerus were and are completely correct with their deeply flawed studies, it proves nothing about Darwinian evolution, here is a germane comment from www.uncommondescent.com:


Majerus is unlikely to persuade skeptical evolutionary biologists that the peppered moth story, even when told with Kettlewell’s shortcomings corrected, is a good model for evolutionary theory generally. Twenty years ago, well prior to the hubbub about the peppered moth (started in large measure by Majerus himself), evolutionary geneticist Wallace Arthur doubted that industrial melanism — observed in many other taxa besides moths, by the way — provided much, or any, insight into the problem of macroevolution:

There is much current debate on whether the ‘micro-evolutionary’ studies of population geneticists, which deal with minor evolutionary changes occurring within present-day species, provides the whole story (or even an important part of the story) of ‘macroevolution’….equally one can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan — black Biston betularia [melanic moths] certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate.

(W. Arthur, Theories of Life [Penguin, 1987], pp. 156, 180)

Arthur’s skepticism, like that of many other evolutionary biologists, has only grown in the intervening period.


I repeat: "THUS IN THE END WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW HOW BODY PLANS ORIGINATE."

Wells comments:

"Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of the Species, because he thought he had discovered the mechanism whereby unguided natural processes could produce not only new species, BUT ALSO NEW ORGANS AND BODY PLANS. Yet no one HAS EVER DOCUMENTED THE ORIGIN OF A SINGLE SPECIES by Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection.

"University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001: 'None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.'"

He goes on to point out that, as the simplest form of independent life, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and 150 years of study, no evidence of species change at such an elementary level pretty much obviates the theory of transmutation of any species.

And here is the clincher:

"Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportion of two varieties in a preexisting species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place."

It is reported that Kettelwell committed suicide, after he was denied election as a Fellow of the Royal Society for a third time. Majerus may have permanently damaged his credentials as a reliable expert with his questionable study, if the charge of sampling bias can be shown to be credible, and all for what? Merely to balance yet another lie on top of another lie?

Everyone on this board concedes that both natural and artificial selection occur. What is at play here is this proposition: Can such a process lead to a new and different body plan? All evidence shows that it cannot.

Darwinism is a religion and a poor one at that. It is actually a cult, disguised as science. But the veneer is wearing thin, and for those who swear allegiance at all cost, can Kool Aide drinking be far behind?

You are on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of reality, akg. Get out while you still can.

Re: Genetic Limits

1. Without a barrier there are no limits. We don't have to prove there is no barrier. Just like ak said, we don't have to disprove a teacup orbiting the sun. You have to prove it. So show us a barrier for genetic mutations. Please. Without evidence of a barrier, it is ridiculous to claim there is one.

2. Actually, believe it or not, big changes aren't all the kind you see in fairy tales. Hox gene experiments showed taht with just one mutatio, small guidance wings on fruit flies can turn into flight wings. You may call this a small change, but there are big differences between the two. This is just ONE mutation.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

1. Please provide your proof that mutations and natural selection can produce unlimited change and evolve new body parts/organs never seen before in that organism.

2. Please provide proof of a fluit fly turning into anything but another fruit fly. Or just what do you consider a "big change"?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of the Species, because he thought he had discovered the mechanism whereby unguided natural processes could produce not only new species, BUT ALSO NEW ORGANS AND BODY PLANS. Yet no one HAS EVER DOCUMENTED THE ORIGIN OF A SINGLE SPECIES by Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection."

A lie. There have been many recorded events of speciation. Creationists not only accept this now, but in fact base their entire Flood Model on it.

"He goes on to point out that, as the simplest form of independent life, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and 150 years of study, no evidence of species change at such an elementary level pretty much obviates the theory of transmutation of any species."

The fruit fly experiments? Those deal mainly with hox genes, showing that small mutations can cause a big change.

"Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportion of two varieties in a preexisting species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place."

Yes, which is why it was evidence of NATURAL SELECTION. The genetic mutations to cause the variation are another thing all together.

"Everyone on this board concedes that both natural and artificial selection occur. What is at play here is this proposition: Can such a process lead to a new and different body plan? All evidence shows that it cannot."

Another lie. Mutations have cause many changes to the body plan of organisms.

"Darwinism is a religion and a poor one at that. It is actually a cult, disguised as science. But the veneer is wearing thin, and for those who swear allegiance at all cost, can Kool Aide drinking be far behind?"

Care to explain how it is a religion? I've asked many creationists on ths board, but none could exlpain that one to me.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Re your point number 4 (Misread and misinterpreted) as to my dismissive remark that even if Kettlewell and Majerus were and are completely correct with their deeply flawed studies, it proves nothing about Darwinian evolution, here is a germane comment from www.uncommondescent.com:


Majerus is unlikely to persuade skeptical evolutionary biologists that the peppered moth story, even when told with Kettlewell’s shortcomings corrected, is a good model for evolutionary theory generally. Twenty years ago, well prior to the hubbub about the peppered moth (started in large measure by Majerus himself), evolutionary geneticist Wallace Arthur doubted that industrial melanism — observed in many other taxa besides moths, by the way — provided much, or any, insight into the problem of macroevolution:

There is much current debate on whether the ‘micro-evolutionary’ studies of population geneticists, which deal with minor evolutionary changes occurring within present-day species, provides the whole story (or even an important part of the story) of ‘macroevolution’….equally one can argue that there is no direct evidence for a Darwinian origin of a body plan — black Biston betularia [melanic moths] certainly do not constitute one! Thus in the end we have to admit that we do not really know how body plans originate.

(W. Arthur, Theories of Life [Penguin, 1987], pp. 156, 180)

Arthur’s skepticism, like that of many other evolutionary biologists, has only grown in the intervening period.


I repeat: "THUS IN THE END WE HAVE TO ADMIT THAT WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW HOW BODY PLANS ORIGINATE."

Wells comments:

"Darwin wrote a book titled The Origin of the Species, because he thought he had discovered the mechanism whereby unguided natural processes could produce not only new species, BUT ALSO NEW ORGANS AND BODY PLANS. Yet no one HAS EVER DOCUMENTED THE ORIGIN OF A SINGLE SPECIES by Darwin's mechanism of variation and selection.

"University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001: 'None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.'"

He goes on to point out that, as the simplest form of independent life, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and 150 years of study, no evidence of species change at such an elementary level pretty much obviates the theory of transmutation of any species.

And here is the clincher:

"Even if the classic peppered moth story were 100% true, it would demonstrate only a reversible shift in the proportion of two varieties in a preexisting species. It would tell us nothing about the origin of those varieties, much less of Biston betularia, moths, insects, or animals in the first place."

It is reported that Kettelwell committed suicide, after he was denied election as a Fellow of the Royal Society for a third time. Majerus may have permanently damaged his credentials as a reliable expert with his questionable study, if the charge of sampling bias can be shown to be credible, and all for what? Merely to balance yet another lie on top of another lie?

Everyone on this board concedes that both natural and artificial selection occur. What is at play here is this proposition: Can such a process lead to a new and different body plan? All evidence shows that it cannot.

Darwinism is a religion and a poor one at that. It is actually a cult, disguised as science. But the veneer is wearing thin, and for those who swear allegiance at all cost, can Kool Aide drinking be far behind?

You are on the wrong side of the issue and the wrong side of reality, akg. Get out while you still can.

Thirdly: Haeckel's drawings and the corrective nature of science

Haeckel's drawings were an incorrect interpretation of the theory of evolution. This much cannot be contested. However, there are a few things to be noted, best viewed as a timeline:

1. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859 (note that this is BEFORE Haeckel)
2. Haeckel's hypothesis was first published in 1866
3. Haeckel's pictures were published in 1874
4. The first objection to Haeckel's drawings came in 1894...followed by...

William Garstang, 1922
Gavin de Beer, 1958
William Ballard, 1976
Stephen J. Gould, 1977
Richard Elinson, 1987
Jane Oppenheimer, 1987
Michael Richardson, 1995
Stephen J. Gould, 2000

All of these authors condemn the idea that embryonic development follows the evolutionary pattern - in no uncertain terms. Sedgwick, for instance, compiled an extensive list of objections to recapitulation as formulated by von Baer and Haeckel, and specifically rejected it as untenable - in 1894. This represents over a century of unambiguous denial of Haeckel's theory of recapitulation. The date can be pushed back even further, since von Baer published his critique of recapitulatory interpretations of his observations in 1828.

If you are trying to pretend that evolutionary biologists are all closet fans of Haeckel, where are the citations to prominent modern scientists defending his theories?

Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics. That the biogenetic law is false has been the consensus of biologists for over 100 years, and developmental biologists have been working constructively to provide alternative explanations, which have so far all been evolutionary in nature.

With regards to the drawing's use in textbooks:

"...one of the textbooks I was able to find that referenced Haeckel was one I've taught from for a number of years - Campbell's Biology. I took a close look at the relevant section of this particular book - this section is all of two paragraphs long, with one figure. It would be good to see more substance on this subject, especially in a book that is 1175 pages long. However, I found nothing in what Campbell has written which is objectionable. He begins with the point that "Closely related organisms go through similar stages in their embryonic development", and illustrates that with a PHOTOGRAPH of an avian and mammalian embryo. This statement is correct, and the figure backs up the point. He ends the section by explicitly correcting Haeckel's ideas, saying that "The theory of recapitulation is an overstatement. Although vertebrates share many features of embryonic development, it is not as though a mammal first goes through a 'fish stage', then an 'amphibian stage', and so on. Ontogeny can provide clues to phylogeny, but it is important to remember that all stages of development may become modified over the course of evolution." This is entirely correct. I do not see any errors of fact in Campbell's treatment of the subject, although I do think it is unfortunate that so little space can be spared for it."

To assume that Haeckel's drawings are actively being "promoted" by the scientific community is patently false. There is nothing wrong with the drawings being used in a textbook *for historical reasons*, but certainly if they are used to explain Haeckel's incorrect interpretation (and taught as such) they should be removed, which would clearly have the support of the entire biological scientific community.

Thus is the self-correcting nature of science.

Re: MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History

If that's a quote, the biased in your source is choking me.

Starting out with Mothra is an argument from ridicule.

The peppered moth's are actually a very good example of natural selection. There is an obvious relation. Pollution up-black moths up and white down. Pollution down- white moths up and black down. You must understand that birds and other predators don't see like us. The key lies in what they see. We don't understand why it is the population changed, but it is obviously a process by natural selection. Although I do agree that the dishonesty wasn't a scientific thing to do.

I honestly don't see why creationists like to point this out so much. It shows the power of natural selection. They didn't even change species.

This is showing power of natural selection, but all it really proved was micro (a change within species). It was evidence, but it was just for natural selection.

The Haekle embryo charts? His charts were drawings. He didn't falsify. He simply directed more attention to the similarities. They weren't fakes. His charts have been removed and are now only in textbooks for historical purposes. We now have actual embryo photos that are completely accurate. And you know what? They still support evolution.

Yes, I agree. The drawings shouldn't be promoted as facts. And they aren't. We have actual photos now.

"
Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question."

I can ask the same of you. I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History


Mothra is of course a character in Japanese monster movies, but as mythical moths go Darwin’s enablers came up with their own moth myth first. For comparison, let us start with the vital facts on Mothra:

Mothra

Species: Divine Moth

Alias: The Thing
Form(s): Larval Form
Adult Form
Length: Larval form 30-120 meters
Adult form 24-65 meters

Weight: Larval form 8,000-16,500 tons
Adult form 15,000-22,000 tons

Wingspan: 75-175 meters

Air speed: Mach 3-80

Relationships Shobijin (Priestesses)
Battra (Dark twin in Godzilla vs. Mothra)
Mothra Leo (Son in Rebirth of Mothra)

Major enemies Godzilla
King Ghidorah
Battra
Death Ghidorah
Gigan

Major Allies Godzilla
Rodan
Miki Saegusa
Baragon

-Source: Wiki

A pretty impressive moth, one must admit. But in the “real” moth world, Darwin’s humanist apologists, while slyly pushing their religion on the unsuspecting, are ever ready to grab onto any lie that will promote their cleverly-devised fable. Such is the case with the peppered moths, used for generations in biology textbooks as a prime example of evolution. Pale-peppered moths in Britain supposedly changed to black and back to pale-peppered in response to the ebb and flow of industrial pollution. The problem is it never occurred the way it was written about and especially the way it was deviously pictured. (Ah, yes, the devious pictures, always the devious pictures).

First, the photos of the moths on tree trunks were staged. They were variously glued on and pinned in place on the trunks, which changed from light to dark in response to black soot in the air. Why is that important? Because in nature these moths almost never rested on tree trunks, they rested on the undersides of leaves where they were not likely to be seen by predator birds! The tree trunk colors were irrelevant in the context of what was being promoted. In later experiments, the moths were deliberately placed in unnatural positions on the trunks which the birds merely took advantage of for a free meal. But it was all designed for human consumption, had nothing to do with the natural order as was being deceptively portrayed, and in reality was pure, dishonest propaganda. (And what, pray tell, does dishonest propaganda have to do with any genuine scientific process?).

Gould alludes to this pathetic "scientific" joke as just more “proof” evolution is a fact (see “Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1994, 13th paragraph), yet when examined more closely, it is shown to be simply another "Just So" story disguised as science. (You will note that the story is being quietly moth-balled as the truth gets out).

It may come as a surprise, but Darwin considered embryos, not fossils, to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory (as quoted in the “PIG Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” page 25). Falling in step with the party line in the 1860’s, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some vertebrate embryo drawings which distorted the views of German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who objected to the concept that “the various classes of vertebrates…were descended from a common ancestor.” –ibid, page 26. These fake drawings were used in millions and millions of textbooks and are still in use today in some, in spite of the fact that they are known to be falsified, all to promote a total lie.

Even the aforementioned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in 2000 labeled Haeckel’s embryo drawings “fraudulent” and wrote: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” –ibid, page 28.

All of the forgoing barely scratches the surface of evolutionist fakery, and proves what Einstein said of pseudo scientists: “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” These pseudo scientists have been doing just that from the dawn of Darwinism. At least in a movie about Mothra, we know our leg is being pulled. With the unprovable myth of Darwinism presented as fact, generations of humans are being morally-stunted by a joke, a lie and a moth-eaten myth being pawned off as reality, and they are being deliberately led to believe there is air-tight evidence for something that is simply not true.

Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question.

And your proof is?

In regard to your comment:

"I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable."

1. We don't use them to "downplay the influence of evolution."

We reference them to highlight the evolutionist's desperation in using such silly tactics when they could just point to all their 'supposed' evidence and crush the controversy.
Why these are still in textbooks is facinating ...

2. Please submit one piece of the evidence that is "many times more reliable" that proves evolution and we'll go over it together.


Also, on September 7th, you posted:

I'll be glad to find some evidence here later today, but let me preface my work with this:
Why can't it?
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/728248

Did you forget to find it?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

If that's a quote, the biased in your source is choking me.

Starting out with Mothra is an argument from ridicule.

The peppered moth's are actually a very good example of natural selection. There is an obvious relation. Pollution up-black moths up and white down. Pollution down- white moths up and black down. You must understand that birds and other predators don't see like us. The key lies in what they see. We don't understand why it is the population changed, but it is obviously a process by natural selection. Although I do agree that the dishonesty wasn't a scientific thing to do.

I honestly don't see why creationists like to point this out so much. It shows the power of natural selection. They didn't even change species.

This is showing power of natural selection, but all it really proved was micro (a change within species). It was evidence, but it was just for natural selection.

The Haekle embryo charts? His charts were drawings. He didn't falsify. He simply directed more attention to the similarities. They weren't fakes. His charts have been removed and are now only in textbooks for historical purposes. We now have actual embryo photos that are completely accurate. And you know what? They still support evolution.

Yes, I agree. The drawings shouldn't be promoted as facts. And they aren't. We have actual photos now.

"
Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question."

I can ask the same of you. I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History


Mothra is of course a character in Japanese monster movies, but as mythical moths go Darwin’s enablers came up with their own moth myth first. For comparison, let us start with the vital facts on Mothra:

Mothra

Species: Divine Moth

Alias: The Thing
Form(s): Larval Form
Adult Form
Length: Larval form 30-120 meters
Adult form 24-65 meters

Weight: Larval form 8,000-16,500 tons
Adult form 15,000-22,000 tons

Wingspan: 75-175 meters

Air speed: Mach 3-80

Relationships Shobijin (Priestesses)
Battra (Dark twin in Godzilla vs. Mothra)
Mothra Leo (Son in Rebirth of Mothra)

Major enemies Godzilla
King Ghidorah
Battra
Death Ghidorah
Gigan

Major Allies Godzilla
Rodan
Miki Saegusa
Baragon

-Source: Wiki

A pretty impressive moth, one must admit. But in the “real” moth world, Darwin’s humanist apologists, while slyly pushing their religion on the unsuspecting, are ever ready to grab onto any lie that will promote their cleverly-devised fable. Such is the case with the peppered moths, used for generations in biology textbooks as a prime example of evolution. Pale-peppered moths in Britain supposedly changed to black and back to pale-peppered in response to the ebb and flow of industrial pollution. The problem is it never occurred the way it was written about and especially the way it was deviously pictured. (Ah, yes, the devious pictures, always the devious pictures).

First, the photos of the moths on tree trunks were staged. They were variously glued on and pinned in place on the trunks, which changed from light to dark in response to black soot in the air. Why is that important? Because in nature these moths almost never rested on tree trunks, they rested on the undersides of leaves where they were not likely to be seen by predator birds! The tree trunk colors were irrelevant in the context of what was being promoted. In later experiments, the moths were deliberately placed in unnatural positions on the trunks which the birds merely took advantage of for a free meal. But it was all designed for human consumption, had nothing to do with the natural order as was being deceptively portrayed, and in reality was pure, dishonest propaganda. (And what, pray tell, does dishonest propaganda have to do with any genuine scientific process?).

Gould alludes to this pathetic "scientific" joke as just more “proof” evolution is a fact (see “Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1994, 13th paragraph), yet when examined more closely, it is shown to be simply another "Just So" story disguised as science. (You will note that the story is being quietly moth-balled as the truth gets out).

It may come as a surprise, but Darwin considered embryos, not fossils, to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory (as quoted in the “PIG Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” page 25). Falling in step with the party line in the 1860’s, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some vertebrate embryo drawings which distorted the views of German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who objected to the concept that “the various classes of vertebrates…were descended from a common ancestor.” –ibid, page 26. These fake drawings were used in millions and millions of textbooks and are still in use today in some, in spite of the fact that they are known to be falsified, all to promote a total lie.

Even the aforementioned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in 2000 labeled Haeckel’s embryo drawings “fraudulent” and wrote: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” –ibid, page 28.

All of the forgoing barely scratches the surface of evolutionist fakery, and proves what Einstein said of pseudo scientists: “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” These pseudo scientists have been doing just that from the dawn of Darwinism. At least in a movie about Mothra, we know our leg is being pulled. With the unprovable myth of Darwinism presented as fact, generations of humans are being morally-stunted by a joke, a lie and a moth-eaten myth being pawned off as reality, and they are being deliberately led to believe there is air-tight evidence for something that is simply not true.

Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question.

Re: And your proof is?

1. The moths are in there to show the power of natural selection. Explain why creationism has a problem with this when it doesn't even involve a change in species?

The embryo charts are in there for nothing other than historical significance.

2. ERVs. YOu never did reply to them when Kabane52 presented them to you.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

In regard to your comment:

"I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable."

1. We don't use them to "downplay the influence of evolution."

We reference them to highlight the evolutionist's desperation in using such silly tactics when they could just point to all their 'supposed' evidence and crush the controversy.
Why these are still in textbooks is facinating ...

2. Please submit one piece of the evidence that is "many times more reliable" that proves evolution and we'll go over it together.


Also, on September 7th, you posted:

I'll be glad to find some evidence here later today, but let me preface my work with this:
Why can't it?
http://pub17.bravenet.com/forum/1424646898/fetch/728248

Did you forget to find it?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

If that's a quote, the biased in your source is choking me.

Starting out with Mothra is an argument from ridicule.

The peppered moth's are actually a very good example of natural selection. There is an obvious relation. Pollution up-black moths up and white down. Pollution down- white moths up and black down. You must understand that birds and other predators don't see like us. The key lies in what they see. We don't understand why it is the population changed, but it is obviously a process by natural selection. Although I do agree that the dishonesty wasn't a scientific thing to do.

I honestly don't see why creationists like to point this out so much. It shows the power of natural selection. They didn't even change species.

This is showing power of natural selection, but all it really proved was micro (a change within species). It was evidence, but it was just for natural selection.

The Haekle embryo charts? His charts were drawings. He didn't falsify. He simply directed more attention to the similarities. They weren't fakes. His charts have been removed and are now only in textbooks for historical purposes. We now have actual embryo photos that are completely accurate. And you know what? They still support evolution.

Yes, I agree. The drawings shouldn't be promoted as facts. And they aren't. We have actual photos now.

"
Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question."

I can ask the same of you. I showed you just how these are not lies and are exaggerated by creationists to downplay the influence of evolution. Interesting how you chose such weak examples when evolution has evidence many times more reliable.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

MOTHRA: And Other Mythical Moths in History


Mothra is of course a character in Japanese monster movies, but as mythical moths go Darwin’s enablers came up with their own moth myth first. For comparison, let us start with the vital facts on Mothra:

Mothra

Species: Divine Moth

Alias: The Thing
Form(s): Larval Form
Adult Form
Length: Larval form 30-120 meters
Adult form 24-65 meters

Weight: Larval form 8,000-16,500 tons
Adult form 15,000-22,000 tons

Wingspan: 75-175 meters

Air speed: Mach 3-80

Relationships Shobijin (Priestesses)
Battra (Dark twin in Godzilla vs. Mothra)
Mothra Leo (Son in Rebirth of Mothra)

Major enemies Godzilla
King Ghidorah
Battra
Death Ghidorah
Gigan

Major Allies Godzilla
Rodan
Miki Saegusa
Baragon

-Source: Wiki

A pretty impressive moth, one must admit. But in the “real” moth world, Darwin’s humanist apologists, while slyly pushing their religion on the unsuspecting, are ever ready to grab onto any lie that will promote their cleverly-devised fable. Such is the case with the peppered moths, used for generations in biology textbooks as a prime example of evolution. Pale-peppered moths in Britain supposedly changed to black and back to pale-peppered in response to the ebb and flow of industrial pollution. The problem is it never occurred the way it was written about and especially the way it was deviously pictured. (Ah, yes, the devious pictures, always the devious pictures).

First, the photos of the moths on tree trunks were staged. They were variously glued on and pinned in place on the trunks, which changed from light to dark in response to black soot in the air. Why is that important? Because in nature these moths almost never rested on tree trunks, they rested on the undersides of leaves where they were not likely to be seen by predator birds! The tree trunk colors were irrelevant in the context of what was being promoted. In later experiments, the moths were deliberately placed in unnatural positions on the trunks which the birds merely took advantage of for a free meal. But it was all designed for human consumption, had nothing to do with the natural order as was being deceptively portrayed, and in reality was pure, dishonest propaganda. (And what, pray tell, does dishonest propaganda have to do with any genuine scientific process?).

Gould alludes to this pathetic "scientific" joke as just more “proof” evolution is a fact (see “Evolution as Fact and Theory, 1994, 13th paragraph), yet when examined more closely, it is shown to be simply another "Just So" story disguised as science. (You will note that the story is being quietly moth-balled as the truth gets out).

It may come as a surprise, but Darwin considered embryos, not fossils, to be “by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of” his theory (as quoted in the “PIG Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design,” page 25). Falling in step with the party line in the 1860’s, German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel made some vertebrate embryo drawings which distorted the views of German embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer, who objected to the concept that “the various classes of vertebrates…were descended from a common ancestor.” –ibid, page 26. These fake drawings were used in millions and millions of textbooks and are still in use today in some, in spite of the fact that they are known to be falsified, all to promote a total lie.

Even the aforementioned evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould in 2000 labeled Haeckel’s embryo drawings “fraudulent” and wrote: “We do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!” –ibid, page 28.

All of the forgoing barely scratches the surface of evolutionist fakery, and proves what Einstein said of pseudo scientists: “When the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.” These pseudo scientists have been doing just that from the dawn of Darwinism. At least in a movie about Mothra, we know our leg is being pulled. With the unprovable myth of Darwinism presented as fact, generations of humans are being morally-stunted by a joke, a lie and a moth-eaten myth being pawned off as reality, and they are being deliberately led to believe there is air-tight evidence for something that is simply not true.

Therefore my question to promoters of macro, Darwinian evolution is this: If your theory is so credible, why do some many of its promoters do so at the expense of truth? Why is so much fakery, flimflammery, and outright dishonest propaganda involved?

That is your burning question.