Replies

The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature.

"This is natural selection, a fact of nature."

I rest my case. You believe Darwin, and agree with natural selection. You insult Darwinism for other reasons.

Just consider the obvious contradiction in you sentence above.

They're different, more resistant, which means they are not the same.

Fundamentally changed.

And a bunch of small changes to an object means you will have an object that is very different from what you started with. That is a simple, observable fact.

I rest my case. You believe Darwin, and agree with natural selection. You insult Darwinism for other reasons.

Oh PLEASE!! You are not being truthful here. Your case and your big point on this whole thread was that natural selection over time=evolution. This is where your error occurs. Evolution is not observed, but is an inference that is not supported in fact. Your case and point of error is in equating the two, which are totally different things. One is supported and observable in nature, the other is not. It is like saying 1+1=4. Sorry, but you have no case.

Darwin observed natural selection, like we all do. He didn't observe evolution, and neither does anyone else, because things don't evolve. Once you understand that natural selection does not equal evolution, then we can proceed. I will outline the differences for you:

1. Natural selection is observable in nature.
2. Natural selection occurs without the addition of genetic information. Your bug example falls under this category.

On the other hand, EVOLUTION:

1. Is not observable in nature or experimentation.
2. Presumes that genetic material can be added (once again not observed). Example here would be nice, but not expected.

Also, when you stop debating fact and head for comments like "you insult darwinism for other reasons," your argument loses validity. Let's stick with facts.