[jennyp]

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.

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.

[whattajoke]

G3K: "No Jenny, you know exactly what I am speaking of. Mixed in with the leaves and branches they are hard to spot by birds."

Not that this has any bearing on the discussion at hand (does anything Gore ever says?), but after reading his above statement, I do believe Gore thinks birds, and probably all animals, see the same spectrum we do. After all, remember god created eyes, so an eye is an eye is an eye, right?

he probably wonders why zebras are striped the way they are, saying to himself, "boy, they sure is easy for them thar lions to see!"

I could go on, but seeing as we're dealing with G3K, its worthless.

[gore3000]

Gore, whatever you do, DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING:

You really wanted me to read it eh!

Problem with your source is that its main argument:

The facts have been pointed out repeatedly to Wells;

is a lie. Wells knew the arguments when he wrote the book. He dealt with the Majerus statement DIRECTLY. For the author of the article you quoted to say Wells has not done so is as dishonest as the actions of Kettlewell in faking the evidence. From Icons of Evolution pp 154-155:

In 1998 University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote a review in Nature of Michael Majerus's book, Melanism: Evolution in Action. As we have seen, Majerus defends the classical story, but he also acknowledged the problems with it. And the problems were enough to convince Coyne that the story is in serious trouble. "From time to time," Coyne wrote, "evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed and downright wrong." According to Coyne, the fact that peppered moths do not rest on tree trunks "alone invalidates Kettlewell's release-and-recapture experiments, as moths were releaseddby placing them directly onto tree trunks."

Further, another evolutionist who defends Kettlewell, Bruce Grant admits "we still do not know the natural hiding places of peppered moths".

So shame on all evolutionists for defending a fraud and adding to the shame by using lies.