to me this is simply evidence of mutation, which is support for evolution but not evidence of evolution persay.
real evolution has to happen with sexually reproducing organisms. when a group of offspring can reproduce with each other but not with their anscestors, that is evolution.
That's not the definition of evolution at all.
From Wiki:
In
biology,
evolution refers to changes in the
inherited traits of a
population of organisms from one generation to the next.
It is these inherited traits that make some members of one species have more likelihood of surviving and reproducing than it's counterparts who do not have the trait. A member that has one inherited trait will still be able to reproduce with a member without an inherited trait, but over time, more of the population with the inherited trait will be breeding than the population that does not.
What I have given you is an excellent example of evolution. One of the defining characteristics of e. coli is that it cannot digest citrates. The parents could not digest citrates, while the offspring could. Hence, there has been a fundamental change in the e. coli colony, and this is one of many examples of evolution at work.
If this had been observed somewhere public then only liberal christianity would remain as credible
Evolution and Christianity (and any other religion, for that matter) are not opposed. Many people choose to interpret the Bible as a metaphor. In fact, many people accept that scientific ideas are not opposed to Christianity, although we might argue about the morality of some areas of scientific research.
(oh wait, even then conserves could charge that human is not an evolutionable species; that evolution only applies to animals...evolution would have to be observed in the human species).
This is the only thing of interest in your whole post, although it is not interesting in the way you intend to.
There is quite a big debate as to whether people are evolving or not. Those who say that the evolutionary process is slowing down, or occuring at a negligable rate point out lowering death rates, a rise in medicines that allow people with genetic diseases to live long enough to have children, and so forth, as evidence that humans are somewhat buffered from the evolutionary process.
Obviously, any discussion about whether humans are evolving or not brings rise to people trying to present pseudoscientic support for racist views, or discussions about being over-taken by ethnicities who have more children than average and so forth. I don't want to go into this here because I don't want to derail the thread.
my thought remains, evolution is not a fact, it is the most credible theory.
If this is so, why are you so against evolution as a theory then? I don't think it is a fact, because it can be disproven, but it is the only way that so many biological observations can be explained adequately, and there are no alternatives that are nearly as good. And even if we had proof against evolution, we would need to come up with a theory that would explain why evolution was so successful in making the many predictions that it has.
