yes bill, I am quite aware that Darwinism posits that only one line out of several may lead beyond the bounds of observable natural selection in a given organism.
for discussion purposes that might seem a good argument. it is also very convenient.it cannot be proved or disproved.
however it still means that for the many examples of stasis, you have to posit that they remained much the same despite changing selective pressures.
I read the link, but it only seemed to be describing natural selection.to infer that creationists don't accept that is your straw man.
and that moth thing - is that the same one where they glued moths on to tree trunks!?
either way, it is nothing that evidences mud or moth to man evolution.
so how do you overcome that?
you just assert again that all the lines of science converge on evidencing the evolutionary pathway.
if what that article details is evolution, then that makes me and most creationists evolutionists!
that's partly why I put an "ism" on the end of evolution.
natural selection is proven- evolutionism is,nt.

this might be my last post for a week as we are on holiday from tomorrow.   regards   pete.