Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

I can't find the quote you used there, it doesn't seem to be from the message you responded to.You also ignored his revelant answer: Do I need to remind that you were the one who asked about natural selection?
Sticking to the subject helps focusing on the discussion and prevents Gish gallop. If you wish to discuss either mutation or Evolution as a whole, you need to make another thread.Looking back at the OP I see that you made a confusion about evolution and natural selection but I thought RAZD pointed it out: That was in answer to your first post. I personally think that the admins should have corrected you so you could modify your OP accordingly to avoid future confusions. But since I'm not very experimented with forums....

Looking back, I don't know how I missed the thing you quoted, sorry for that.The problem is that in the OP, you asked if natural selection was tested when I think you meant evolution as a whole, I thought I already pointed it to you.
To remind you: the title of your thread is :"Has natural selection really been tested and verified?"
I suppose we could debate as if you meant evolution from the start though, maybe it would make things clearer?By the way you did a confusion in your post again, natural selection can happen without mutation, it's evolution that wouldn't happen without mutations. Here you interchanged natural selection and the theory of evolution as if they were the same thing. I suppose it's the source of most of this thread's confusion.