Evolutionists continue to misrepresent evolution

This link from newscientist.com provides another stark example of how evolutionists use sleight-of-hand techniques to obscure what evolution really is, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19447-religious-rite-gives-evolution-a-helping-hand.html. In this brief article, you will read how local peoples introduce a toxin into the water in order to paralyze cave molly fish so they can capture the fish more easily and use them in some sort of ritual. Researchers from Oklahoma have studied these fish and found that the cave molly fish, over the years, have become less sensitized to the toxin than upstream cave molly fish (that presumably don't get exposed to the toxin). Newscientist.com then makes the statement that "evolution has selected for fish that can cope with the toxin."

There are (at least) two things wrong with this statement. First, "evolution" doesn't "select" for anything. Evolution is, by definition, a completely random and purposeless process and stating that evolution "selects" for something makes the clear implication of an intelligent process. This may seem like a minor point, but, trust me as an ex-evolutionist who bought the lie, it provides a powerful visual concept when a newbie tries to figure out how evolution "works."

Secondly, what is actually described in the post is not evolution at all. Evolution is the development of a new trait (or traits) through the acquisition of new genetic material that results in the formation of a new species. That is NOT what is going on with these cave molly fish. They are still cave molly fish, not a new species of fish, and these fish already have varying levels of resistance to the toxin. What is happening, if anything is happening at all, is that natural selection may be at play, causing fish that ALREADY HAVE PREPROGRAMMED BUILT-IN RELATIVE RESISTANCE TO THE TOXIN IN their genome to be able to reproduce more readily (since the ones that are relatively more resistant to the toxin don't die, and so are able to pass along their more-resistant genetic material to their offspring) than the cave mollys that don't have the relative resistance. There is no new genetic material at play that results in the relative resistance, no new traits, and no new fish species. These fish already have some level of resistance ot the toxin - some just seem to have more than others. This is absolutely not evolution; it is possibly natural selection. But trying to keep those two concepts clear from one another (I think I can safely state that all creation and evolution scientists believe in natural selection) isn't something evolutionists, the media or teachers ever try to do since it isn't effective when they try to program your child's mind and kill their critical thinking skills when it comes to the atheistic process of evolution.