RE: Proving Evolution
They are not changing what "kind" of thing they are. You've conflated generational mutations and selection with a step-change in which a descendant can be differentiated form the immediate ancestor by changing to a new creature.
Just for example, dogs descended from wolves, but their offspring are viable. They are the same kind. So the dog has not evolved, but specialized. Such an observation is not unique; the moths and bacteria are even less specialized.
You are doing a bait-and-switch. There are no modern evolutionary changes. You are showing a few of the documented (and exciting) ways that communities of creatures adapt to environmental forces.
When you claim that these are exemplary evolutionary changes, you err.
Evolution theory revolves around the belief (a strong, unscientific word) that creatures of one kind evolved changes to become new, more complicated creatures with novel organs, appendages, skeletal structures, and body parts which were entirely unknown beforehand. You conflate things like chromosomal changes (melanin amounts) with evolution (novel creatures).
This is why any biologist can claim "evolution" discoveries under every tree. The belief is such that the random chromosomal changes are de facto evidence of evolutionary processes... when they are instead responsible for random deaths due to genetics (deer born with 3 legs, club foot) and specialization that is not beneficial (6 fingers, supernumerary nipples).
So when you get lungs, exoskeletons, and stomachs from 100,000 generations of amebas, give me a call.
You lose me where your statement insinuates that generational mutation and selection AREN'T evolutionary processes. Yeah I would say the moths are only experiences a small "step-change" but thats because thats what evolution is... small step changes that accumulate eventually to cause SPECIATION which is an event within the theory of evolution that causes new species to arise.
Just because a new species isn't being born, doesn't mean there isn't evolution in each step. In the example of the back moths; let's say now the next several generations are born black. -JUST AN EXAMPLE- but let's say their black color made them unable to mate back with the white population, and their pigment also lead to an increased expression of dwarfism which comes with the black pigment but isn't being killed off because the black pigment is also advantagous now.
If the dwarf, black colored moth and a regular white moth were in the same tank, they would no longer mate and this would be a case of SPECIATION by the phylogenetic or morphological classification of species. This is undeniably a viable example of evolution.
Changing the "kind" of thing it is, isn't evolution, that's barely even an accurate definition of speciation, as many very different species still look very similar on the outside, as is with MANY birds.
"So when you get lungs, exoskeletons, and stomachs from... bla bla bla" U ever been taught evolutionary biology in a classroom? Cause is sure sounds like ur spewing a lot of "scientific" knowledge about evolutionary definitions which aren't accurate to anything spoken by any traditional evolutionary advocate since before Darwin.