...I will pose a question.
How is the accidental drowning of a female dung beetle in shit, as a result of the attention of too many males, an advantage to the species?
I am glad you asked. Too often, IMHO, is discussion of evolution focused on the selection of the fittest when probably the elimination of the less fit occurs more often and drives the changes in the gene pool more than the selection of some slight advantage. Often even if that slight advantage does result in an extra off spring in the next generation (that would not have happened without the slight advantage in the genetic change) the change will usually soon get lost in a large gene pool.
For example, all humans have come down from only one woman, Mitochondria Eve, but she lived only a short time span back in evolutionary history of humans. This means that the genes on many other women got lost. Some may have had survived for 1000 generations before they disappeared from the gene pool of humanoids.
I.e. selecting OUT of the gene pool by being too inclined to drown in a pile of shit is probably the main means used to modify the gene pool with time - more effective than, for example, having genes that give the dung beetle extra sensitive chemo-sensors to smell the shit a few meter farther ways than the typical dung beetle can.
Because of this line of thought, I am somewhat concerned with "humanistic /moral" trends to save the weaker people born today in modern societies. Probably it will work out OK for the human species in the end as we will (already are to some extent in several countries) increasingly testing fertilized eggs in vitro (after they have divided to at least 8 cells, one of which is removed for genetic evaluations) prior to implant in the womb for genetic pre-dispositions to various diseases and more than compensate for the growing tendency to some disease in the gene pool, such as diabetics to increase due the "humanistic /moral" compassion. Jewish couples who know they both carry the gene for Tea Sacks (not spelled right) disease have been adopting or not having children for a few generations. etc. (not only high tech science is compensating for the "humanistic /moral" compassion, but not enough is being done, yet. - I.e. the gene pool is getting more dependent on artificial means of keeping people alive.
Certainly, the gene pool has been significantly disadvantaged by "humanistic /moral" compassion in the last 50 years in the US and EU. It may seem cruel and heartless to say, but only if you take a short term POV, the synthesis of insulin, etc. were terrible events for human kind. Selecting out is very important.
I think the annual Darwin Awards express this idea / understanding well. Anyone have a link to 2008's winners?
My favorite from a few years back was the German Zoo attendant who was giving his very constipated elephant (more than 10 days without a BM) an oil enema. When the elephant cut loose, the blast knocked the attendant backwards. His head hit the ground so hard that he lost consciousness and then soon suffocated under a pile of shit.
(Must be true. - You can't make shit like that up.)
PS - you complained that your question was ignored. My post 83 has been too. - It is clear proof of the formation of a new species by environmental selection pressure. There is another - a controlled experiment done in Brazil with some fish which naturally lived below a waterfall with predators - that caused them to have small number of eggs early in their life before they got eaten. The scientist moved some above the water fall and in remarkably few years (10 or 15, I forget) these fish grew much larger (not too surprising as they live longer) and delayed their fertility more than a year to lay many more eggs. - Not yet a new species - but clear evolution selection at work with the dramatically changed environment.