Far more than I ever really cared to know about peppered moths...
Rand, really, is this necessary?
this is a fantastical claim calling into question the professionalism and competence of evolutionists
Huge numbers of studies and reviews have been done on the peppered moth varieties, melanism, differential predation. Like most science, it wasn't done "right" (optimally) the first time, and even now the data, and their implications, remain unclear. As RAZD notes, even your DI source concedes the jury is still out, although you missed that part. I will note that the data on which the critique is based was also obtained by scientists--are they also fantastical and incompetent?
The scientific process of self-correction continues forever. The original fellow pinned moths to tree trunks
because he thought it was good enough to yield data that would otherwise be difficult if not impossible to obtain.
So?
Both data collection and analysis are being sharpened.
So?
BTW, what makes you think that the upper branches of trees would be less polluted than trunks? Some birds work their way up with their head up, some work their way down with their head down, and some hang from branches and work all around them--but most of the activity is in the canopy. If the forest is polluted (as all the tiny remaining shreds of European forests are), the entire tree is polluted, not just the trunk. If anything, the moths on high branches are more intensely predated by birds, and camouflage even more crucial.
BTW, America no longer has "vast" forests, and their pitiful remnants are all grievously polluted.
I'd be more impresed by your insulting assessment of scientists making an authentic effort to learn the facts if there were some suggestion of fraud or incompetence. There is none.
There is, however, your continued insistence on offensive, inaccurate, unjustified denigration of the integrity of men and women who devote their lives to inching closer to truth. Do you refer to the early work by Benjamin Franklin on electricity that way? It was crude; most, if not all, of what he thought was wrong: was he "fantastical and incompetent"? Or was he merely taking a step forward so that others could step past him?
That kind of smearing language makes you sound like an ethically-challenged fanatic. If you have good arguments, just make them: gratuitous accusations of dishonesty and fraud are counterproductive and hurtful.
™ Version 4.2
