3 ms·

You mean the picture was staged... which is a huge difference from saying the "whole thing" or even "a huge part of it". Do you also look at paper models of th

• NickBusey 10y ago
  From the link the parent commenter posted: > The staging was an issue, critics argued, because it over-simplified the peppered moth story and made it seem that the camouflage of the moths was a self-evident advantage. However, it wasn't clear that moths rested on tree trunks during the day, as the pictures implied. Some evidence suggested they preferred to remain higher in the tree canopy and beneath branches where their coloration would have been less of an advantage. Also, it wasn't clear that birds were the main predator of moths. Bats also ate moths, and since bats use echolocation to navigate, the coloration of the moths would not have made a difference. Critics also questioned the methodology of Kettlewell's experiments.
  • splawn 10y ago
    Its science... all experiments have their methodology questioned by critics. These points are coming from the distorted views of Intelligent Design advocates in hopes to take advantage of peoples ignorance of how science works, a tactic that sadly seems to work well. Edit: again, read TFA
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • 86646 10y ago
      Science is science, regardless of the motives behind a criticism. If the criticisms are sound, it doesn't matter who made them.