Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

Eh, no. Go back and re-read the thread, especially Huntard's reply to you at Message 86. Natural selection is a filter. Without non-directed mutation, Natural Selection would still occur, but the results would likely be different from those we see in our particular reality. Depending on your parameters, you might or might not see the evolution of new species taking place. But Natural Selection would still act independently as a selector determining reproductive success.How about one possibility? Here's a hypothetical example of Natural Selection resulting in hereditary change but without mutation.Say that variation our genetic make-up was determined by the gods. Let's suppose that Zeus, Aphrodite et. al. were still around making half-human/half-god heroes and monsters with half-human/half-god DNA, while at the same time restricting the rest of us without divine parentage to stable, non-mutating DNA. Natural Selection would still work. We'd still see changes in the distribution of alleles in the population. Heroes would almost certainly have different rates of reproductive success than we mortals do. (Whether they'd be more likely to leave descendants because they're semi-divine hotties with *ahem* special powers, or less likely because killing monsters is part of the job description, would have to be determined.) But natural selection would still be an active agent. The environment would still act as filter. Changes in allele distribution would still take place. However, the nature and frequency of these changes would be Zeus-driven rather than mutation-driven. Thus, hereditary change - hereditary because the important genes come only from divine parents - without non-directed mutation.Obviously, there are a lot of other factors to take into account. In this particular scenario the distribution of divine DNA probably wouldn't matter in the long run. Having a hero for a dad would probably do nothing to change the chances of your own reproductive success. Genetic variation would only occur by divine intervention, and since it wouldn't persist beyond the first generation, the evolution of new species would be unlikely if not impossible. Nevertheless, this somewhat far-flung example at least shows that Natural Selection and mutation are separable elements that can be considered independently.My apologies for going off into the Land of Let's Pretend. I'm sure that I'm week in the details but at least I hope that I'm expressing the general idea that just because we'd get different results in a world that lacked non-directed mutation, that doesn't mean that non-directed mutation and Natural Selection alway have to go together.{ABE} I also hope that this doesn't obscure the idea that in discussion evolution as a whole, it's still necessary to include both mutation and Natural Selection. The point remains that you can consider how one works without also having to discuss the other.Edited by ZenMonkey, : Added attempt at clarification.