Once again we have the distinction between adaptation and evolution. I ask again, what is the mechanism for adaptation? If you do not agree that selective breeding is the cause, what is your proposal? This is a straightforward question.
Well I go along with Darwin and say it is the "survival of the fittest". Btw selective breeding is not the answer because that is artificial selection. Natural selection says that, especially in difficult times, those orgamisms of a population best adapted to survive do so, reproduce and pass those advantageous traits to their offspring. Add in the possibility of the introduction of random traits which can also be passed on and we can see how organisms remain adapted to a changing environment (or not and become extinct). Where I disagree with you is when you say that because we see this process, evolution must be true.

As I said before, there is no evidence of one species changing into another (unless Rory provides me with some) but Darwin's theory does provide a plausible explanation of how that might happen. It is not just plausible, it is elegant and powerful, since if it is accepted, organisms must be adapted to their environment and traits must be useful, so in studying an organism you ask of every trait "what is this for?" "how does it help this orgamism reproduce?"

This is why I don't like Ronin's "case closed" statement. It's not that I think that the Theory of Evolution is wrong; I like it, and it is the best explanation we have at present, but in science, the jury is always popping in and out and revising its verdict as new evidence is discovered. It's one of the things that makes science interesting.

some old book that we don´t even know when, why, and who wrote is not what i´d call "proof" of anything.
Today 20:58
It is not appropriate to talk about "proof" when discussing evolution, only the balance of probabilities. Any creationist with intellectual rigour would have to accept the weight of scientific evidence is against the bible account of creation (strictly speaking against either of the bible's two acounts of creation), but they are still free to believe it if they wish. Personally, I don't think the bible is a science text-book.