Spiders - or Does Evolution Happen??

[shouldbeinbed]

Not actually true, but a bit off topic.

Eyewitnesses to that assertion?

 

[mybike]

Perhaps you could start your education by looking at Kettlewell and Majerus' work on the peppered moth.

You mean where they stuck the moths to the appropriate place to photograph them?

 

[mybike]

Eyewitnesses to that assertion?

Check out what the Early Fathers said about the authors of the gospels.

 

[mybike]

There is little point in discussing things with you @mybike......I'm putting you back on Ignore. I'm sure you are a decent person in real life but on here you assume the character of a poorly read, obnoxious buffoon.

Check out the facts ... The moths were stuck or pinned on tree trunks for the photographs.

 

[Fnaar]

Dinosaurs were teenytiny

Tinyrannosaurus Rex
Dinkyplodocus

 

[benb]

Check out the facts ... The moths were stuck or pinned on tree trunks for the photographs.

Got a link to back that up with evidence?

 

[winjim]

Check out the facts ... The moths were stuck or pinned on tree trunks for the photographs.

So what?

 

[Spinney]

Check out the facts ... The moths were stuck or pinned on tree trunks for the photographs.

Seems a sensible way to get decent quality photos for a report.
But the conclusions were based on counting the numbers of the different kinds of moth, weren't they? So the method of taking the published photos is not really relevant.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

You mean as in, if we plant corn corn is what grows?

I theorise that if I plant corn, then corn will grow.

If however, somebody else plants corn, and carrot grows. Then my theory is incorrect, a new theory could be, if you plant corn, then a carrot or corn grows.

Somebody notices that if it's hot corn grows, if it's cold carrot grows. So our theory changes again.

Without an observation that doesn't fit the original theory, the theory remains unchallenged. So I put it to you, what observation is there that does not fit the theory of evolution?

 

[mybike]

Got a link to back that up with evidence?

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...3/title/Second-Thoughts-about-Peppered-Moths/

 

[mybike]

I theorise that if I plant corn, then corn will grow.

If however, somebody else plants corn, and carrot grows. Then my theory is incorrect, a new theory could be, if you plant corn, then a carrot or corn grows.

Somebody notices that if it's hot corn grows, if it's cold carrot grows. So our theory changes again.

Without an observation that doesn't fit the original theory, the theory remains unchallenged. So I put it to you, what observation is there that does not fit the theory of evolution?

Farmers tend to buy seed on the basis it will produce what they are told it will produce.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Farmers tend to buy seed on the basis it will produce what they are told it will produce.

Nothing is certain, there are no "laws" despite some things being called them. The farmer buys the seed on the basis that it will produce what they are told, which is formed upon hundreds of years of evolution.

I'm not sure how simple I can make it?

 

[PhilDawson8270]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...3/title/Second-Thoughts-about-Peppered-Moths/

You know that a disagreement does not disprove something? Scientific methodology is always evolving

Our methods change, our analysis changes. Science has the ability to look at things again, and change the theories. But still, there has been no observation to challenge the theory of evolution.

 

[benb]

http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...3/title/Second-Thoughts-about-Peppered-Moths/

Well the author there has credulously taken Coyne's criticisms (some of which, to be fair, were valid) and drawn incorrect conclusions. And if you knew anything about the author, you'd know he is an "intelligent design" creationist, so hardly unbaised, and in fact his criticisms in the article above and in his debunked "Icons of Evolution" hatchet job are distortions and misrepresentations.
Subsequent experiments by Majerus validated the original work, and showed 80%+ did rest on branches and trunks.
As above, using dead insects for the purposes of illustrative photographs is common, and does not invalidate the research at all.
The Wikipedia entry is a good summary, with proper cites and references.

 

[User169]

I had lectures from Mike Majerus, although my recollection was that he was more into ladybirds at the time.