Quote:

About the peppered moth: it was a farce anyway. Common logic dictates that the moths couldnt have gotten eaten during the day anyway, moths are nocturnal and noone really knows where they go during the day. Thus birds would not have eaten them because birds hunt in the day, thus natural selection wouldnt have occured. The camoflauge of dark dirty trees or lighter ones wouldnt have mattered at night time either.



There are birds that eat them during the night too, and also it's far from impossible that they get eaten during the day too. I'm not sure what colors an owl would see for example, but I'm quite sure that the white color still makes up for a higher contrast during night, than a black color would, being still more easy to spot. Isn't the example still valid when it comes to natural selection? I do agree though that the example itself has it's flaws.

As for textbooks and their content, there's a lot more in them that's not true anyways. Getting rid of that would not be a problem, but what about all the assumptions we get thaught as being truths? Get rid of them and there won't be much left. Not even recorded history is unbiased ("one-sided view-effect"). I agree we should not be thaught things that simply aren't true, and sometimes notes are being left out that the things stated might not be true, but where does it end if you want to get rid of all those things. In the peppered moth case, blame the author and probably the time during which the book was written don't you think?

Cheers

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software