“Natural Selection is an observable event but does not imply evolution of new species.”
That is a false statement. “Natural Selection” does clearly imply the evolution of biological organisms, but there is a difference between implying an event and demonstrating a scientific proof of an event. What you are implying in your own statement is the difference between correlation and causation. Your argument is a logical fallacy, because “Natural Selection” is now known to be not the only natural process responsible for the evolution of biological organisms. Also, it appears from your statement that you do not have a correct understanding of what does and does not constitute a biological species.
You will note that I said ‘species’. Organisms that evolve through natural selection are not ‘new’. They are variants of the same species made prevalent by selective forces.
Humans did not descend or evolve from Apes. Evolutionists claim ***mutations*** (not natural selection) ‘caused’ such ape to human evolution. That is entirely in the realm of speculation. The maximum likelihood estimates of such mutations are completely speculative and based on ‘wanting’ to prove, in fact groping for a fit to a flawed theory.
Evolution of species adopted natural selection as an explanatory tool and in time hijacked it as the causal force to explain all things descending from a primordial soup.
Correlation does not imply causation. But the reverse is certainly true. And evolutionary ‘science’ (actually astrology) utilizes statistics as its method of inferring things. Evolutionary astrology uses statistical correlations and writes from these correlations certain fictions of causation that fit its preordained narrative.
Evolution is not science. It is not even close. But it deceives by hijacking a narrative of the forces of Natural Selection to its domain of publication.