That's called a change in the allele frequency. In other words, evolution.
Micro-evolution, though. Change within a species or type that leaves that species the same cannot be reasonably extrapolated to prove that the species could change to a different type. Otherwise we would be able to observe Macro-evolution.
Besides, the moths are a poor example of micro-evolution anyways, just survivability of certain inherent camouflage abilities. The parent moths have the genetic ability to give birth to both black and white speckled moths. To say that this is micro-evolution is to say that blonde hair and blue eyes in Germany during the reign of the Third Reich is proof of micro-evolution because it was beneficial to survivability.
"That's called a change in the allele frequency. In other words, evolution."
Not even remotely so.
------That's called a change in the allele frequency. In other words, evolution.
No, it's change, but it isn't "evolution." For "evolution" you need (at a minimum) the introduction of new genetic material, not simply the elimination of some characteristics in some individuals. Check your dictionary, see de-vol-u-tion, n. It's interesting that loss of specific traits is so much easier to document than addition of traits, A fact that lends support to the ID folk.
The biologists love to tell us about fish that lost their eyes, moths that lost their color, horses that lost their toes, hippos that lost their legs, birds that lost their teeth, Aunt Sally losing her appendix etc., etc., all to convince us that "little by little, the accumulation (!) of changes has lead to the structures we see today."
What these biomissionaries need is a Freshman Logic course.