Evolution did happen

Not so fast, my fine-feathered friend. You claimed that new species occur by evolution through natural selection. And, remember that my challenge is "to show examples where we have seen animals (or perhaps plants) evolve from one distinct species into another distinct species." Nothing you say shows any instance where one species became or produced a different species. Yours and Darwin's burden is to show me the new species. The oft-cited moth example shows at most that a species of moth changed color. But the dark moth never became a species different from the white moth. It's not hard to imagine that individuals change within a species; the difficulty is finding and explaining how one species produces another. Now my principal objection is that you've failed to produce an example of what you claim happened. I turn now to some minor points. You say, "Lactose intolerance is one example of natural selection." First, a great number of people become lactose intolerant in their later years. There is an entire industry built around it. So if our species maintains its tolerance for lactose, that adaptation hasn't taken hold, yet. Second, you fail to show it is an example of natural selection. Do you suppose that early humans did become lactose intolerant in adulthood, and so lactose tolerance developed over time, such that those who were lactose intolerant were unable to mate as easily as those who were tolerant of lactose? Third, how does being lactose tolerant, or not, help our species overcome what life-threatening environmental problems? You appeal to the example of the sickle hemoglobin gene. The gene seems to help people survive malaria. Then your source claims: "The mutation probably happened over hundreds of generations as a result of the constant exposure to malaria and people contracting and surviving it. If some people contracted malaria and then survived the disease, before the existence of the gene, then obviously they didn't need the gene. If they didn't need the gene, neither does anyone else, and so there is no biological explanation for the gene's coming into existence. You claim "the evidence for natural selection can also be seen in artificial selection," which I"m afraid is utterly false. Even the most adamant Creationist acknowledges that artificial selection occurs. No one, and I mean literally no one, denies that human beings cause changes in animals through artificial selection. Over the millennia, there is not a single instance where artificial selection produced a new species. Not one. If you could provide examples of new species through artificial selection, then that would help your case for natural selection. Often science reproduces a result in the lab and that opens our understanding of a natural event. If we could produce a new species from artificial selection, maybe could understand how one species produces another. You say, "Of course artificial selection is the selection of certain traits by humans, but it is not so different from natural selection. . . . In artificial selection, humans are the guiding hand, in natural selection, nature is the hand that guided every species for millions upon millions of years. Those that survive, breed, and the only ones to breed are the strong (either in mind, or physical strength)." I don't want to argue about the phrase "not so different," but the differences between the two are interesting if not substantial. First, human beings intend changes through artificial selection. Nature has no intentions. It works willy-nilly and often, I suspect, without any purpose at all. Second, natural selection supposedly aims at improving a critter's ability to survive and thrive. Artificial selection has no such purpose. We did not breed dogs so they will survive in the wild better; in fact, that is precisely what we don't want in new breeds, lest they eat the baby. The purpose of artificial selection is to improve the critter for our benefit. Often the improved plants and animals fare far worse in the wild after we're done with them. Thus, there are two major differences between natural and artificial selection. The ball's in your court.