[Stultis]

They need to prove that an actual change in DNA occurred not that a particular trait was favored but already existed.

Um, why? Is there some, "one-series-of-experiments-and-resulting-publication-must-prove-everything-all-at-once" rule that applies only to evolution? Whereas every other science (at least those that don't perturb biblical literalists) gets to follow the normal pattern of using experiments to ISOLATE different aspects of complex phenomena?

[cue "scraping" sound of goalposts being pushed waaaaaay back]

[RobRoy]

>>They need to prove that an actual change in DNA occurred not that a particular trait was favored but already existed.<<
>>Um, why?<<

Because simply favoring an existing trait vs. coming up with something that never existed before are two completely different things. They are as similar to each other as the 737 I flew to LA last week and the model of a 737 I kid carves out of a piece of wood.

No, They are as similar as a glock 9mm and a gun carved out of a piece of soap and covered in black shoe polish: it only fools the people who are not paying attention.

[DungeonMaster]

Evolution can occur quickly and change how populations interact [Lab demonstration]

Thought it was a done deal based on this title. The title sure doesn't imply any of the stuff you stated about process.