TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.aspYou are very wrong. Many of Einstein's predictions still haven't been verified. One of GR famous predictions of light being affected by gravity wasn't verified until Sir Arthur Eddington's photos of the 1919 eclipse, but that was only a very small part of the theory.
In much the same way, there have been many verifications of evolution. The predictions have been made and verified using genetic analysis. In fact, since DNA was discovered, there was a great opportunity for science to falsify evolution since if the theory of common ancestory was incorrect, the genes shared between various species would be more random. Instead we find that plants and animals closely related in the evolutionary phylegenetic tree will share the appropriate percentage of genetic material that can be predicted based on how they're related.
As for your complaint about the peppered moth. The pinning of moths you refer to was only for the purpose of taking a picture that ended up being used in textbooks, the science wasn't based on the picture but the actual melanism of the moth.Another common criticism involves well-known pictures of moths resting on trunks, used in many textbooks. These photos were prepared (dead moths pinned to branches), which has been conflated into the idea that all the studies were staged, ignoring the point that professional photography to illustrate textbooks uses dead insects because of the considerable difficulty in getting good images of small, relatively fast moving, animals, and that the studies actually consisted of observational data rather than using such photographs. The photographs in Michael Majerus's 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action are unstaged pictures of live moths in the wild, and the photographs of moths on tree-trunks, apart from some slight blurring, look no different than the "staged" photographs.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
Still doesn't prove evolution, just that light colored moths were more likely to be eaten (and thus not reproduce) than dark color moths when pollution altered the land scape.
The opposite (dark colored moths dying out) occurred when the pollution was cleaned up.
It doesn't prove evolution. There are still both kinds of moths, and thus the study fails to posit what it was aimed at, which was proof of evolution.
All it proved was that birds don't have very detail oriented eye-sight, and thus found it easier to spot light-colored moths on soot covered trees, and dark colored moths on clean trees.
Besides, you still have yet to contradict the fact that there is no evidence that life came from some primordial goo, which is the most important link in proving evolution.
Until science can prove that primordial goo can result in life, then evolution is neither proven nor disproven and is only being pushed as an article of faith.
Not that intelligent design isn't also an article of faith, but like I said before, given the choice, I favor the fallen angel hypothesis more than the monkey hypothesis.
Suet, Monkeys, Suet!