... by some relevant research (not only 47 moths with the naked eye during more than 30 years) as to the resting places of peppered moths.
The total set of observations of the resting places of peppered moths is the relevant research. What other research could be relevant?
Why you complain that these observations were made with the naked eye, I have no idea. How else would you observe a moth?
And surely I am not asking so much at the beginning of 21 century, when we see from satelites smallest details on Earth.
You want satelite images of moths?
In the first place, satelites can't resolve that level of detail, and in the second place, even if they could, they wouldn't pick up moths on tree trunks, because the crown of the tree would get in the way.
As your link points out, their most common resting position is on the underside of branches, where the same camouflage would be useful as on trunks.
Please note also that this whole question of whether they roost on trunks is irrelevant to most of the studies, including all of Kettlewell's studies, none of which involved the fixing of moths to tree-trunks.
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." --- Bertrand Russell
The link that you have given shows an intersting photo of "A female parasitoid wasp ovipositing into a 7-spot ladybird". Obviously ladybird has enemies and red colors have no aposematic function as darwinists claim - opposite is more plausible in the case. Wasps should be happy about coloration of ladybirds. The color play obviously no role in "fitness" or "natural selection" in this case.
The title of this thread is not "MartinV whines about aposematism again".
As to the peppered moth I do not see in your extraction any mention of lichens. It is important to notice in which background typica/carbonaria rests during day. Anyway it is positive that Majerus reserched more closely resting place of moths. Darwinists claim more than 100 years that selection of peppered moths has led to difference in their coloration rate without any study where they rest.
This is not true, and we know it's not true, and you know it's not true, and you know we know it's not true, and we know you know it's not true, and you know we know you know it's not true.
So why bother saying it?
If those questions are not answered I am afraid we are still as we were 50 years ago when Kettlewel started his "experiments".
Actually, no. Majerus' results will continue to be meaningful whether or not you can be bothered to look up all the things you don't know.
If you'd bothered to read the thing you C&P'd you'd notice that the results Harrison reported couldn't be replicated.
You would also have noticed, if you'd read as much as four sentences into your C&P, that Harrison's experiments weren't on peppered moths.
So what we have here is an experiment not on peppered moths, which no-one could replicate, and the supposed implications of which for peppered moths have been utterly refuted by ... well, all the work ever done on the moths since the 1920s.
But I'm not sure why I bother telling you this. If you're too lazy to read your own posts, I have little hope that you'll make the effort to read mine.
Classic evolutionary tautology. The reproductive success of organisms that have traits which promote reproductive success. The reason this is nonsense is because it contains no information. Reproductive success (not quantified) used twice and traits (quantified only by reproductive success which remains undefined).
Classic creationist blunder. The reproductive advantage of traits can be assessed a priori, not merely a posteriori: for example, it is evident that the better-camouflaged moth has a trait which promotes reproductive success, namely better camouflage, which we would expect to keep it from being eaten by predators.
The statement that such traits will in fact spread through the gene pool is not at all tautologous, since we can imagine circumstances (such as the miraculous intervention of a vengeful god with a grudge against mutants) under which this would not occur, despite our a priori judgement that the trait is favorable.
The definition, "survival of the fittest," is most definitely a tautology.
Not necessarily, and for the same reason --- we can assess fitness a priori. Other things being equal, the well-camouflaged moth is fitter than the poorly-camouflaged moth, the more streamlined fish is fitter than the less streamlined fish, the faster gazelle is fitter than the slower, the bacterium resistant to our antibiotics is fitter than the one that isn't.
And again we can imagine a world in which a malevolent deity (or some other hypothetical mechanism) thwarts our a priori expectations of their relative likelihood of success and failure.
I have written before about the absence of a creationist world-view. Their nonsense about peppered moths is a case in point. It is one of their rituals to recite that they "don't deny microevolution". But they do in fact deny it in every particular case. They lie about peppered moths, they lie about fruit flies, they lie about antibiotic resistance in bacteria, they lie about Lenski's experiments: you show them any example of microevolution and they will in fact deny it.
In the case of peppered moths, it has been observed that natural selection prefers one allele over another. This is plainly, obviously true --- and what's more, this fact would not bring the whole Book of Genesis tumbling down. But they still find the need to lie about it.
I really don't know why. I can observe the phenomenon of creationist behavior, but I can't explain it.