[Quick1]

Ah, but it is. Some mosquito evolved with a mutation that somehow allowed it to resist pesticide. It then reproduced and spread its genes to the next generation of mosquitos. Now we have a bunch of those mosquitos that all have the mutation, and they live easier than mosquitos without the mutation, so they propagate more.

If that's not a classic definition of evolution, then what is?

[Dataman]

If that's not a classic definition of evolution, then what is?

microevolution vs.
macroevolution

The creationist has no problem with microevolution which is variation and adaptation. For example, 2000 years ago there were far fewer varieties of dog. Though there are many new varieties today, they are still dogs. They existed in the genetic material of their ancestors 2k years ago. No new genetic info was added.

Macroevolution would allow for a plant to become a mammal. Of course this sort of thing does not happen. It has never been observed. It only happens in textbooks and computer animation.

[kkindt]

There is no proof that the mosquitos that are resistant have that resistance as a result of a mutation. Yes, we agree, there DNA is different in some respect. But this difference can also be explained by a diversity in the original genetic pool that was created. Mutations observed by science have universally been bad news for the creature in which they occur. Evolutionism posits and presupposes positive mutations - mutations that give the creature survival value. The problem is none of these mutations are actually observed. What evolutinoist do is make the logical error of assuming that creatures with different DNA must have gotten that difference from mutations when it is also possible the gene pool of that kind of creature already had this diversity. For example, the Finch beaks - there is a diversity in the genetic pool so that when food supply only provides hard to eat seeds the finches with the bigger stronger beaks survive more often - then when the food supply becomes easier to eat the smaller beaked finches become more plentiful - but there is no proof that the difference in beak size can be attributed to a mutation.