Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

I know that Darwin's idea of natural selection was that some life forms that were best suited to the environment would survive better then those that didnt. But I thought that modern evolutionists taught that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection would choose the ones whose gene mutations made them most fit for their environment and eventually they developed into new species.
(ie macroevolution)
You seem to be saying that Mutations are not required to form new species, is that correct?

ok, so If i have a baby which survives, thats natural selection taking place???

could this happen in human populations and has it happened?

whats the differnce between this and mutation?

what is it with 'us'sheeshwhat is it with you?Huntard attempted to show that mutation and natural selection are differenthis sentence stated that natural selection produces 'inheritable traits'My question, which you failed to answer, was what is the difference between these 'inheritable traits' and mutations?If you cant answer, then dont.

ok so this takes me back to my original question to youWhat is the difference between mutations and inheritable traits?You said that mutations are changes in dna. You also said that NS favors those inheritable traits.So, are 'mutations' the same 'inheritable traits' you are refering to? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

ok, so there must be a lot of mutation occuring in order for there to be so much diveristy in life formsIs this an accurate assumption?

thats what im intersted in...biological barriersand the reason is because if it occurs among other species and if its a part of evolution, then it would surely happen among humans too

that was an entertaining readand i mean that in all sincerity Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

do you see speciation occuring any time soon and if it were to happen, what would be the precursor?

why do they call it 'evolution' and not some other term which more accuarately describes the adaptation of the finchs to a changed environment?

well then that explains why we creationist get all hot and bothered about the term 'evolution'its change has been so subtle over the years that we think of it in its original form, namely darwinian evolution of the species.that all creatures evolved from pre existing creatures, including humans. Perhaps if the new format was publicised and explained about how it is different to its original meaning, we'd be more accepting of the term.

What did they evolve into?and why did the research of Peter Grant and Lisle Gibbs see a reversal of that 'evolution' when the climate changed. They found that the beaks of later generations changed again and again going from large beaks to small depending on the climate. And also, why did they see that some of the different 'species' could interbreed and produce offspring?? That surely indicates that they were still the same species even though there were observable changes.the finches were still finches weren't they? but surely you can see how this is quite different from Darwin who went beyond small observable changes. He wrote that all the millions of species alive were the descendants of just a few creatures. He said they slowly evolved by extremely slight modifications.you are speaking about one very small part of a bigger picture. Creationists are looking at the bigger picture.

we usually have fairly civil discussions here and it makes evc worth coming back toplease dont throw a spanner in the works by being rudeWe dont all agree, thats what makes this board work...but it wont work if it becomes a catfight.