Natural Selection of Mouth?

I find it interesting to see how people land on my site.

Search: "natural selection of mouth during industrial revolution"

That search stumped me momentarily, and then I thought to mentally remove a 'u'.

For some reason, this site appeared at the top of the search even though I only mention "mouths-to-feed" in relation to evolution of the industrial revolution.

Ah well, at least that u-inserting person in Singapore was interested in the greater survival of darkly colored Peppered Moths (Biston betularia) after the industrial revolution.

"Today, we should consider changes in the colors of the moths as an example of natural selection in which one factor is predation by birds."

That searcher was not looking for stupid arguments for YECreationism or IDiocy, as was a person in St. Petersburg, Florida, who searched for "ken miller chromosome 2 fused refutation".

To refute is to "prove wrong by argument or evidence", so looking for evidence counter to demonstrated fact seems like a hopeless task from the outset, and, I'm happy to say, certainly would be hopeless on this site. (Arguments alone cannot refute demonstrated facts, as most religionists remain blissfully unaware.) I'm even happier that this site popped up ahead of the Anti-Discovery Institute's falsehoods on the subject.


Anonymous said...

An idiot going by the handle "David Marbus", but without a profile, posted a classically stupid rant against James Randi. The regurgiquoted spam-style blather has been deleted for all eternity. Don't bother trying again, "David".

AIGBusted said...

I have written about the creationist distortions of the peppered moth story on my blog as well: