Einstein and Flat Earth theory

There are a number of criticisms of the Kettlewell study, most are simply restatements from Jonathan Well's book Icons of Evolution. As a consequence, very few of these criticisms show any merit and are easily refuted[3].

Kettlewell's study in the 1950s, which is the basis of the textbook account, was based on three experiments in which he released similar numbers of light and dark-coloured moths in Dorset (rural) and Birmingham (industrial, heavily polluted at that time) and then estimated how many of each type were taken by predators (birds). The three experiments used different methods of estimating how many moths fell victim to predators.

Later studies which sampled the percentages of light- and dark-coloured peppered moths living in unpolluted rural areas and in polluted industrial areas showed several measurements that seem to argue against the conventional story, for example:

    * In rural Wales, there was an unexpectedly high proportion of dark-coloured moths.
          o However, the amount of moths is irrelevant, rather the predation and change in the population.
    * In polluted south Wales, dark-coloured forms were only 20% of the total population of peppered moths.
          o However, the amount of moths is irrelevant, rather the predation and change in the population.
    * In rural East Anglia, dark-coloured forms were 80% of the total population of peppered moths.
          o However, the amount of moths is irrelevant, rather the predation and change in the population.
    * A study of 165 separate sites in Britain found that there was a correlation between melanism and the concentration of sulfur dioxide north of latitude 52°N, but the correlation south of that latitude was less clear.
          o The Steward (1977) study found a strong correlation with melanism throughout Britain. However, south of the 52°N, it was found to be only the second most correlated factor after the east-west location. It was still a significant factor[4].

After pollution control legislation was implemented in the UK:

    * The proportion of dark forms decreased north of London (as expected), but surprisingly increased to the south.
    * Kettlewell and others found that light-coloured forms became more common before lichens re-appeared on trees in previously polluted areas. This undermines the idea that the lichens were the sole factor in causing light colored moths to be more common.
          o The idea that visual predation is the only correlated factor Kettlewell introduced is a lie. The Kettlewell study accounted for the reasons the relative proportions of light and dark moths in East Anglia and northern Wales[5].

There have also been criticisms of the procedure Kettlewell used in his experiments. In particular:

    * In normal circumstances, peppered moths rest much more often on the undersides of small, more or less horizontal branches than tree trunks.
          o The moths resting on branches are also subject to predation.
    * Kettlewell released his moths in the morning to avoid distorting their behaviour by using artificial light. But releasing the moths in the morning confused the moths so that they landed on the first moderately suitable objects they saw, which were tree-trunks. The moths would therefore have been much more exposed to predation than usual, irrespective of their coloration.
          o This would have been true for both groups of moths, as this procedure was used in both. Since the Kettlewell's study there have been a number of studies on peppered moths, many of these didn't rely on released moths.

Most criticisms are based on Kettlewell's study. Many additional studies have been performed on the subject and the they all support the traditional story. Where the trees are darkened the dark colored moths tend to increase in frequency, where the trees are lighter the light colored moths increase in frequency.

Pepper moths rest on the backs of tree leaves.  

The pictures of the Pepper moths on bark were taken by pinning/gluing the Dead moths to the bark. They did not rest there. They rest on leaves.

Religious people have a lot of lies they like to spread trying to discredit particular parts scientific theories that discredit religion.

Another great one is this one:

"If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?"

And then you answer "yes" and it turns out you aborted Beethoven.  What a great way of demonstrating the evil of abortion.  Except, unsurprisingly, like the peppered moth story - it's actually another lie from religion.

Beethoven was actually the oldest of the children that survived infancy, and had 3 siblings - none of which were blind, deaf or mentally retarded and there no evidence that Beethoven's Mum had syphilis.

Religious people have a lot of lies they like to spread trying to discredit particular parts scientific theories that discredit religion.
....
[another post]Obviously when I talk about religion - I am generalising.  

Catholic belief certainly has been modified to accept the overwhelming evidence of science in some parts.

Catholic belief certainly has been modified to accept the overwhelming evidence of science in some parts

You talk of arcane and esoteric things as if they are common knowledge

I'd like to inquire as to how you define a straight line.

When I was in grade school I was taught that our solar system had 9 planets. This wasn't questionable. It was fact. Now schools are saying they were wong. You cannot know what you read in a text book. You can choose to beleive it if you'd like, but don't claim to know. You could read a book about sky diving, but you wouldn't know what it was like unless you did it yourself.

It was a fact. Pluto, until VERY RECENTLY, was considered the 9th planet. Recent changes to the specifications which define "planet" have caused cosmologists to reduce Pluto's planetary status. That is also a fact. Neither was wrong at any point.

Everything else in that quote does hold true. And it applies to both FE and RE models.

On August 24, 2006 the IAU defined the term "planet" for the first time. This definition excluded Pluto, which was then reclassified under the new category of dwarf planet along with Eris and Ceres.[1] Pluto is also classified as the prototype of a family of trans-Neptunian objects.[2][3] After the reclassification, Pluto was added to the list of minor planets and given the number 134340.[4][5]

The Pepper Moth Theory states that during the industrial revolution, smoke and junk and pollutants killed the light lichens growing on the beach trees of England and soot accumulated on the bark. The trees darkened. At the time right before it, there were more light moths than dark because the dark moths stood out against the light bark and were more easily spotted to be eaten. As the bark grew darker, the light moths stood out against the bark, and the dark camoflauged better. Thus, there were more dark than light. As environmental efforts cleaned up the earth (I'm being vague here), the beach trees became light again, and the light:dark ratio again shifted. There were more lights than darks.
Correct?

....

This would all be well and good. It would show natural selection wonderfully.
EXCEPT we missed something ---
Pepper moths rest on the backs of tree leaves. Not bark. the color of the bark makes no difference to the moths, who rest on tree leaves.
The pictures of the Pepper moths on bark were taken by pinning/gluing the Dead moths to the bark. They did not rest there. They rest on leaves.
The video came from using Laboratory moths who were so sluggish that they had to be warmed up on a car radiator. ( I read this somewhere.)
The birds learned of the free meal and came to chow.

Actually, this leaves another small hole. How do birds find their prey? They sure don't do it on eyesite alone. Don't they use UV light or something? I don't quite remember... I could look it up if you wish.

The pepper moth theory is a fraud.
This does not mean that there is no natural selection-- It simply means that the pepper moth theory is inaccurate.
Perhaps if they had done this with a bark-dwelling animal....

What do you call the statement next to "Planet" in my dictionary if you don't call it a definition?

Clearly the wikipedia article is talking about the fact that IAU have never defined the term "planet," not that the term has never been defined at all.

Idiot.

Wiki isn't the person that claimed that "planet" has never really be defined.

It was you.  I call you on the mistakes you make, because you make so many and yet are so arrogant and always act like you know what you're talking about and that your view is right and all the opposing views are wrong.  Perhaps you should look at the way you post and think about how people will react to the way you say things if you don't like people attacking you.

[Earth] is the largest planet in the world.

And the most kitten-filled...

Actually I tend to think it largely can be trusted, especially since it sources all its facts and because people usually correct vandalism quickly.  I wonder how long it takes for that comment you added to be corrected...