LOL, are you saying that peppered moths change color when they die? Because that's the only way that would be relevant.
Shame on you Jenny. The reason that he had to paste them to the side of trees is that they do not rest on the side of trees - as I said. His statement was that they rested on the side of trees and that was when they were picked off by birds. The man was a liar and a fraud and it is an example of the shamefullness and dishonesty of evolution that they still try to use this fraud as an example of evolution.
It is not irrelevant, because the moths are very hard to see if they perch in the branches of the trees and the coloring would not matter very much in such cases. So you are wrong on both counts.-me-
O...M...G... Well sure: If it's hard for humans to see them way up there in the branches of trees, then it must be just as hard for birds to see them too,
No Jenny, you know exactly what I am speaking of. Mixed in with the leaves and branches they are hard to spot by birds.
The desperation of evolutionists in defending this fraud which in no way proves anything regarding evolution shows the desperation of evolution giving evidence of its theory.
Does your Mommy know that you talk this way, little boy?
Gore, whatever you do, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:
Contrary to Wells's assertions, data given by Majerus indicate that the moths do indeed rest on the trunks of trees 25% of the time. The rest of the time moths rest in branches (25%) or at branch-trunk junctions (50%). The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells; his response has been mostly to claim that moths don't rest on "exposed" tree trunks (). But this is not what he said in the text of Icons, which remains flatly wrong. Moths are found all over trees, which is not a surprise () and it is mentioned in the references that Wells cites.