With regard to the bug example, first of all, this is not an ACTUAL DOCUMENTED CASE. This was a fictional scenario created by you to demonstrate natural selection. It does NOT address my - repeated - requests for (and I quote from my initial post on this) "one definitive example of one species that was changed to another...one definitive example of one species that is currently in process of changing into another." An example of such, scientifically documented, you have yet to provide, although you claim knowledge of many.
To specifically address your bug example, I'll repeat the points that I see that others have already made, not that it will do any good.
The bugs who survived in the first place already had in place a stronger resistance to the spray. The ones who did not, died. The surviving bugs produced offspring, which were more likely to possess the same strong resistance. The ones who did possess it survived the second spraying, evidencing to the farmer that a larger population was resistant, as in fact it now was. Those who did not inherit the strong resistance again died.
In your scenario, NOTHING NEW at a genetic level was introduced to CREATE a resistance. This is a classic example of natural selection. Those who survived already possessed the means to do so. They are more likely to produce offspring with that same means of survival; therefore subsequent generations have greater numbers that survive. This kind of scenario has been observed and tested repeatedly.
Regardless, surely you can do better than one fictional example. And if no scientifically documented examples are forthcoming, I believe I'm done chatting. Have a good afternoon.
Congratulations, you are correct.
Darwin's theory of natural selection in action. And you agree with it. Even explained it very well.
But then you fall back on a deliberate error to try and avoid the obvious truth -- admitting you agree with Darwin.
Evolution in no way suggests that 'new' genetic info is added by natural selection. You repeat the theory very clearly, and show exactly how it does work, then lapse into such an obvious error, and one I see above has already been pointed out as an error multiple times to multiple people in this thread alone. This makes it seem like a deliberate "error" on your part. Which is one way to try and relieve the cognitive dissonance, I suppose.
I'll agree with you on this -- if any evolutionists claim that natural selection adds genetic info, I'll agree with you that they don't understand Darwin's theory and are likely incorrect.
How interesting, yes? You so agree with natural selection you can restate it's exact working mechanism, but then a simple misunderstanding on your part leads you astray?
Oh, and I am sorry I didn't repeat the example specifically to you. You may have noticed, I'm discussing this with more than a 1/2 dozen folks in this thread.
And it *is* a real-world example that is so "real" I suspect you don't doubt it happens every day around us. Yet you still ask for proof of what you already know to be true? Give you 'scientific proof' of what you already know to be true (or are you claiming that the bug example does NOT happen)?
I prefer this kind of example, because -- as I have pointed out -- what I consider 'evidence' and what you consider 'evidence' mean we can not possibly have a meaningful discussion about the evidence. We'd be talking about two entirely different things.
Now, consider how your understanding of 'Natural Selection' makes you in agreement with Darwin on all but one count: you don't believe that humans evolved, because of other information you have.
But you don't actually disagree with Darwin's theory, only with one specific application of this theory. That of the descent of Man.
You commented I hadn't given examples, I didn't realize you meant I hadn't repeated the examples to you.
Really? Either the loss of resistance was a mutation or the enhanced resistance was a mutation from the baseline organism. By definition, something new was created within the species at some point in the past (even if, at the moment, we have no idea when that was). Subsequent environmental stress introduced a differential survival rate favoring one genetic line and hence redefining the genetic "norm".