The reason you and GGG are such easy targets is that you make a few simple logical mistakes. Primary among them is assuming as true what you need to prove. More pathological is assuming as true what you then claim to be false. So far I have never met any but creationist/IDers who fell into this logical trap.
The other principal fallacy in your arguments are that you assume that you can argue that which can only be demonstrated by empirical evidence, i.e. data. For all the criticism of the reliability of the data of others, at some point, you have to produce some of your own, and subject it to the same critical scientific public that everything else gets scrutinized by.
In the present case, you cannot argue that natural selection is a tautology, because it is not. Where I to see polar bears and black bears commingling in Rock Creek Park I would have to call the hypothesis into question. That it is obviously true is different from that it is true by definition. The sky is blue, but it is not blue by definition, but because of a physical principle called Rayleigh scattering.
No one has claimed that natural selection is the causative mechanism of change. It is not. Genetic variability and mutation is the driver of causative factor. Natural selection just determines which among the genetically altered lines of offspring will survive.
And as for your example, it is trivially irrelevant. Imagine instead a much more relevant example of a disease that kills of 80% of the population, randomly and with no genetic predisposition, but that a genetic mutation in 1% of the population subastantially reduces the mortality of the disease. The probability of a genetic line surviving even a few generations without that gene arithmetically approaches zero with extreme rapidity. In fact, the gene for lack of resistance would be viewed as a genetic defect.
Try not to be too pretentious, because you are failing to grasp a good many basic principles and making some basic mistakes. How, for example, do you get 1% of a typical population to have a mutation that provides substantial protection to a disease? Think it through.
In order for evolution to be occuring (as opposed to just a shift in gene frequency), we have to start with 0% of the population having that mutation. Then 1 individual has to have it. Not 1%. One individual. For real-world populations there is all the difference in the world between 1 and 1%. 1% of a million is 10,000 individuals, and it takes a very long time for a single mutation in one individual to spread that far, even if it is one of the fortunate ones that is not lost through sexual recombination or just dumb luck (such as the mutants' 6 offspring all dying in a forest fire, disease resistance notwithstanding).
In population genetics, getting from 1% to population fixation is the easy part. It's getting to that first 1% that takes a long, long while.