Evolution did happen

You write: " . . . I just thought you didn't believe in evolution." It's unfortunate you guess what I am thinking instead of reading what I write. You've tried to guess what I am thinking three times and you're mistaken in all cases. I encourage you to read what I wrote and try to respond to that. I challenged your assumption that lactose tolerance came from natural selection. You made no response. I made the same challenge about the hemoglobin gene example. Again, you remain silent. I explained that your moth fails to prove your claim because no new species came into existence. Again, nothing from you. I had to explain the difference between artificial and natural selection because it seemed from what you said that you didn't understand the difference. I am not sure how to get your attention. You claim that evolution produces new species through natural selection. I continue to point out that you have no proof of that claim. Your response is to copy and paste things you find on the internet. I wouldn't mind except that none of your quotes solves the problems I've set out. Briefly, you claim that new species occur through evolution. I ask for proof. Want to know how to prove it? Show me one single instance where we observed a new species coming into existence. For instance, show me a population that separates into two groups. Show me how they became so different from each other that they could no longer mate successfully as they once did. Of course, I don't expect you to traipse through the woods looking for such, but I do expect you to find such an example online or wherever, or to confess that your belief in evolution is without proof. Your example of the skink is interesting. The author claims that evolution is at work, but he assumes that evolution occurs. Did you notice that he never said anything about either population turning into a new species? If he showed proof of that, you'd be home free. You quote: "The biologists reasoned that diversity in a particular ecosystem is a result of . . . ." Notice that these biologists already assume that evolution occurs and they are trying to explain some of its mechanisms. You and I do not assume that evolution occurs because you set out to prove it. You say, "Now, you're probably thinking . . . ." There you go again, trying to figure out what I'm thinking. And you're wrong again. You say, "Now, if you were to ever look at the branching rows of evolution you would be able to see the evolution of new species, even though the last remains alive." Showing a picture fails to prove your point. If I drew a picture of God zapping animals into existence, would you say, "Oh well, there's a picture, so he must be right"? (Resist the urge to guess again, what I think about God. You'll just be wrong again, that topic is outside the bounds of this debate, and you have enough problems with your argument.) You write, "As you can see, variation (and immigration) within a species can lead to a completely different species." Still not a proof. He shoots! And misses. P.S. I am beginning to think you're just now learning about evolution. I don't mean that unkindly, but I suspect you don't yet have mastery over the subject. By the way, you need not give me references to read on evolution. I assure you that I have read a great deal on the subject.