The reason for my post was to show that scientists demand a different burden of proof for design theories than for naturalists theories. I argue that "natural selection" is not something you can prove
no you cant prove anything in science you can test and re test and observe and re observe it until the end of time. At some point though it becomes evident that it is true.
you want to test natural selection go look at the mating habits of mosses or some other animal the strongest gets the girls the one whit the smaller antlers, smaller muscles .... does not. So the one more phisycl fit passes on his gens, the one whit a mutation that helps him has a better chance of passing on his gens and his kids the ones who got the gens have better chances of mating too. While the ones whit a bad mutation or the ones lacking the new good mutation have lesser chances of mating and their kids the ones who do not get the new good gens or the ones who get the new bad ones have a lesser chance of mating and producing new offspring.
that is natural selection it is a process not a deity or some mumbo jumbo.
can we test your god guiding evolution well no we cant, can we observe it no we cannot see god remember. So it is fare more probable that natural selection is the cause not some grate Đuđu up on the mountin.