OK, then you have committed the fallacy of equivocation for believing that 'changes in the gene pool over time' equates to 'evolution'.
"I and countless others have done experiments where we have witnessed such change in response to change in environmental conditions. It is pretty standard fare for biology students."
We could call this one the fallacy of begging the question for believing that what is observed is the result of 'evolution'.
"I assume you have never done such experiments, so let me ask you this: Have you ever had a drug-resistant infection? Do you get a new flu shot every year? These phenomena also support the notion that organisms evolve in response to their environments. The changes that make bacteria resistant to drugs that were formerly effective against them are accomplished via changes in the DNA."
Here, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is noted for believing that what is observed uniquely supports evolution' because it was a 'prediction' of 'evolution'.
"The number of papers relevant to your question has probably has reached the hundreds of thousands by now. These rely not on "logical fallacy" but scientific evidence developed consistent with the scientific method."
Well, the papers documenting the effects observed might have been based on the scientific method, but if the conclusions were 'evolution' then they are firmly based in logical fallacy as noted above.
"I hope this is helpful ... am sorry that I just dont have time to write a lot more."
I hope this is helpful. ... am prepared to point out as many fallacies as you have time to post.
That is the DEFINITION of evolution that one learns in Biology 101. It's no fallacy.
Yesterday I foolishly believed I had gone "shopping." I went to a grocery store and exchanged money for a head of lettuce. It was only when I got home that I realized I had committed "the fallacy of equivocation" for believing that my exchange of money for lettuce had actually equated to "shopping."
"We could call this one the fallacy of begging the question for believing that what is observed is the result of 'evolution'."
I also realized that I had committed "the fallacy of begging the question" for believing that what I had just observed (my successful acquisition of lettuce in exchange for money) was the "result" of "shopping."
"Here, the fallacy of affirming the consequent is noted for believing that what is observed uniquely supports evolution' because it was a 'prediction' of 'evolution'."
And of course, I realized that I had committed "the fallacy of affirming the consequent" for believing that what I had just observed (my successful acquisition of lettuce in exchange for money) actually supported the concept of "shopping" because such exchanges are a "prediction" of "shopping."
Upon my realization that I had been a victim of these logical fallacies, my lettuce vanished. (Although my money didn't reappear, which kind of pissed me off.)