Quote Originally Posted by Garter_Gertie View Post
And how are you able to differientate between natual selection, survival of the fittiest and evolution when, as a whole, they are the same?
They're part of the same theory. Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution and survival of the fittest is another way to describe natural selection. But for natural selection to occur, there needs to be a criteria for selection and that means there needs to be variation.

You're correct. Evolution cannot be proven in a lab while et al can, as it takes thousnads of years for survival of the fittest/natural selection to induce evolution.
Quote Originally Posted by Zephyr View Post
Also, I tend to stay away from the term "Evolution." Natural selection and survival of the fittest can be proven in a lab, evolution can't.
It can and has been proven in labs, and elsewhere. Every single part of evolution has been proven. It wouldn't even be adopted if it wasn't testable and if turned out to be false. When all the mechanisms have been tested and proven to work, there's no reason to assume that evolution doesn't.

To be blunt, all you really need to understand, is that random genetic mutations do happen and that those mutations sometimes influence the fitness of an individual. Natural selection can't work without actually causing evolution.