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.
All evolution is microevolution.
"The parent moths have the genetic ability to give birth to both black and white speckled moths."
Well said and to the point. The genome ALREADY existed for both color schemes. One did not develope by mutation or other mechanisms of genetic change. One was simply selected for by changing enviromental conditions - it did not develope as result of those conditions - the genes already existed. Natural selection serves to preserve a species, not create new ones. Of course, I'm not saying anything here that hasn't been said a million times already - I don't know why I bother.
Apparently the same is true for Darwin's finches.