[exDemMom]

Unfortunately this is simply the fallacy of affirming the consequent. It'a a logical fallacy and no support for evolution. The mechanisms are assumed to be proof of evolution simply because they exist and evolution is presumed to be true. Doesn't get more fallacious than that.

If you can't make a logical progression from "if X, then Y; if not X, then Z", then there is no basis for any science. By your standards, we would make no scientific advancement at all.

[GourmetDan]

"If you can't make a logical progression from "if X, then Y; if not X, then Z", then there is no basis for any science. By your standards, we would make no scientific advancement at all."

Of course by defining evolution(X) as 'change'(Y), any Y is, by definition, 'proof' of X. It's a small logical circle that might be called 'reasoning' by some but remains firmly in the realm of fallacy.