Sorry to hear you tire so easily. perhaps lifting a book would build some muscle. Reading it wouldn’t hurt either. And no, the work on the moth hasn’t been vindicated. Unless it was repeated the exact same way. Here’s a hint for you: saying “nyah nyah” doesn’t count as an effective response. If the experiment has supposedly been vindicated, when was that done and by whom? Not that being successful proves anything about evolution, at least to creationists, most of whom are fine with natural selection and microevolution. My point was the original experiment was designed to give a predetermined result, which is why doing it in a natural, actual, non a priori manner has not returned the purported results. And again, my whole point here is a response to the post about “artistic license’ and consistency. Which is why I reference Haeckels embryos, which continued to be used for almost a century in spite of their fraudulent nature, one of the reasons being no effort made to remove them from books, which begs the question, why? Was it useful even if untrue or inaccurate? Did it continue to propagate a paradigm hardly anyone wanted questioned? You can do better, I know you can.