Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

So ... you don't actually want to discuss natural selection? Only in your OP you said that you did.

But natural selection does not include the mutations --- you might as well say: "This is a discussion of apples, including oranges". Nor is it correct to say that mutations "drive the selection".

There's the experiments that have been done on guppies: these might interest you. The markings on guppies are subject to natural and sexual selection. When guppies are subject to strong predation, they evolve to match the background --- with fine spots on a finely stippled background, and coarser spots on a coarser background. But when predation is not much of a factor, the male guppies evolve to become more conspicuous, helping them to attract females.Some details here and here, or just google on guppies and natural selection.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Ooh, could it be that there are eighteen Galapagos islands and only one Coscos island? That is the evolutionary change.

And, of course, trying to teach you the very meaning of the words you're throwing about.A simple "thank you" would have sufficed And this "choice" is natural selection. The origin of the variation is mutation. It developed through natural selection acting on mutations.There are two aspects to evolution --- variation and selection. These are distinct in much the same way that the engine of a car is distinct from its steering wheel.If you wish to discuss evolution at all it is essential that you grasp this very simple distinction.

Evidently. Yeah, you're very confused. No, when you start talking about mutation, or about the evolution of the eye, you're not "just talking about natural selection".---You seem to be trying to whine about how I've gone off-topic by pointing out to you how you've gone off-topic. I cannot help but wonder whom you are trying to impress.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Be ... cause ... you ... asked ... a ...bout ... the ... e ... vo ... lu ... tion ... of ... the ... eye.This involves mutation.It's like you're complaining: "Why did he say "four" when I asked what two plus two was! I didn't even mention four! This thread is about the number three!" It's like if in a thread about steering wheels you asked me how my steering wheel could transport me from Arizona to Nevada and then whined incoherently when I disabused you of your ridiculous mistake by mentioning the other parts of the car. You may have managed to misunderstand the links that I provided, possibly by the cunning expedient of not actually reading them. Apparently there are many things that you don't see. How fortunate it is that biologists do not share your disabilities.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

A response to your post that needs nothing adding to it.

No only does that not relate to any conceivable evolutionist reply to Peg's post, it doesn't relate to Peg's post either.If you want to debate with the imaginary people who live in your head, may I suggest that this is not the best place to do so?

It's evolution: it's a change in the composition of the gene pool. It's not the evolution on the scale that creationists turn blue in the face trying to deny, but that doesn't stop it from being evolution.In that it can be shown to be adaptive (and because we know that Lamarck was wrong) it is also natural selection in action.

Evolution is the accurate term. There is no "more accurate" term.It would appear that, like many creationists, you would like the term "evolution" to refer only to the things that you want to deny.There are two reasons why this is not going to happen. The first is that creationists don't get to change the language of science to suit their whims. And the second is that even if you did, you guys can't agree on what it is that you want to deny.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That's still what it means.The finch species under discussion was, patently, evolving. Now you are pretending that the meaning creationists want the word to have is its original meaning.No, it isn't.As to the actual meaning of the word being "publicized", you can see its actual use in biology textbooks, in scientific papers, and on discussion boards such as this one. The only people using it inaccurately are creationists, and short of hunting down and killing anyone who uses it inaccurately, I don't see what evolutionists are meant to do about this.Evolution is any heritable change to a lineage. Not any such change that creationists want to deny has happened --- just any such change.

No, I interpreted it as not relating to Peg's post, or to any conceivable evolutionist reply to Peg's post.Which is what I said. If you wish to pretend that there are "issues that an evolutionist would NEVER address" then I await your further elucidation of this point with a mixture of interest, pity, and contempt.But if, as I suspect, this nonsense has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, then I suggest that you start another one.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

* sigh *No, you don't have the right idea.Punctuated equilibrium is the notion that, as Darwin put it:

A population with an average small beak size evolved into a population with an average large beak size. Of course. Evolution doesn't suddenly throw its hands up and say: "Oh, the climate's just dicking me about now, why can't it make up its mind? ... I give up." Of course. But as I've pointed out, "evolution" does not mean "that degree of evolution that creationists deny is possible".The fact that the observations don't contradict creationist dogma doesn't stop them from being observations of evolution. He did. That's the principle of common descent, which is what creationists actually object to. And that's the (his first sketch of) the theory of evolution, which is another thing again. Well, let's run with your analogy. Suppose there was some bunch of people who denied that it was possible for one human (in this case, Michaelangelo) to have painted the ceiling of the Sistine chapel --- the big picture. Well, we could debate that. But suppose they wanted to redefine the word "painting" to mean "painting the ceiling of the Sistine chapel". So then they go around saying "Painting is impossible". Then when I pick up a paintbrush and apply paint to a surface, and say: "Look, painting!" they complain that that's not what they meant. Well, it may not be, but it's what "painting" means.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.