>>Bacteria have not 'evolved' drug resistance; the resistant bacteria have always been there; all the drugs have done is tilt the population demographics in favor of the resistant strains by killing off the non-resistant ones. If this is evolution, then the genocide in Africa is evolution too.<<
Excellent point.
I was shocked when I made the same point to some Rabid True Believer evolutionists thinking they would change the subject. I thought they just didn't understand what was going on. Instead they vehemently defended that very scenario as EVOLUTION IN ACTION. They DID understand it and still considered it proof of evolution. I was dumbfounded. I suddenly realized just how much we are dealing with "educated children" here. They only know what they have been told, and believe it because they trust their professors. That is a good thing because as most of them age and replay in their minds what was being taught and by whom, they will start thinking for themselves and alter their world view. In fact, I just coined a new phrase based on an old favorite:
"Show me a young man who is not an evolutionist, and I will show you a man who was not paying attention in school. Show me an old man who IS an evolutionist, and I'll show you a man who never learned to think for himself."
No doubt they themselves will someday become parents who tell the other one that "the baby's diaper needs evolved".
Darwin himself seemed to like to reserve the word "evolution" as an explanation for the origin of species. I am sure if he meant "change" he'd have used "change" exclusively.
But as pointed out, completely untrue. Just flaming ignorance of science facts.
Sorry, but you're incorrect. Traits can emerge under environmental pressure in populations in which they did not originally exist.
bump