To be fair, scientists have taken flourexscent genes from coral and other things to make cats, mice, and other animals glow in the dark, so a guy with spider web secretions couldn't be that far away.  in fact some folks have made spider goats....here is a bad link, as I couldn't find a great source:

http://scienceray.com/biology/zoology/hybrid-spider-goats/

I already knew about the spider DNA Goats as the goat produce the proteins (exactly what genes do) in it's milk but that a long shot from a goat shooting web out of his butt. That why I stated the "Big" differences are not due to genes and not that genes makes no difference at all.

To cross genes or some genomic elements between species isn't something new, it has been used since classic genetic engineering. But going from expression single proteins to entire cell systems, it's a huge gap.

Fluorescent genes from corals being transplanted to mice and other animals have demonstrated that successful expression of proteins exclusive to other species is viable in large scale expression for a singular protein.

In the case of fluorescent mice, spermagonial zygotes have been pre-inserted with a vector containing cDNA which expresses for a GFP (Green Fluorescence Protein) under the expression control of chicken Beta-Actin promoters and cytomegalovirus enhancers. This affects almost the entire span of the mouse tissues, except the erythrocytes and hair. That's why, under excitation light, they appear as green. 

To actually create a system in which another living being secretes webs as spiders do would take an enormous effort and a massive number of cloning vectors, recombinant zygotes with a high survability rate and a very intrinsic knowledge of the needed promoters, operants and enhancers needed for each of the proteins required for such a system.  Not only that, new functional cells would need to be created, which can create the organs needed for such a system. It's an endeavor that current genetic engineering has probably few tools to even begin to ponder.

I've seen people arguing about morals, and I have one thing to say. Humans seem to change their morals to make themselves look good and to fit their own twisted realities.

For Example:

Americans condemn the Holocaust, but barely a hundred years before they committed mass genocide on my people, The Cherokee. 

Morals only exist when we want them too. At all other times, we're nothing more than savage beasts.

My argument for evolution is simple, just look at genetics. My mother is Cherokee, and my father is Cherokee and half Irish. I have many of the characteristics of a Cherokee, such as a weak immune system to European diseases, but with the light skin of an Irishman. My father on the other hand is very dark-skinned (he has been mistaken for African-American), but bears the physical features of an Irishman. 

This in and of itself is proof of evolution. My family has "evolved" in only two generation. If I married my current girlfriend (she's half Asian and half Mexican) and had children with her, they would "evolve" even more. They might have the typical Asian eyes and hair, but with the build of a Cherokee (Asians and Native Americans are rather similar in many ways already, especially if you believe, like I do, that we migrated over an ice bridge). Or perhaps they will inherit my Irish genes, and have a Northern European build.

Is my family line getting any "better?" Not really, but they are "evolving." If my genes entered the gene pool, how might they effect generations to come? My genes alone might have drastic consequences. On the other hand, if I never had children, my line would die out. My parents have no other children, and their genes would be lost forever.

In summary, evolution is happening all around us, and it's happening faster than ever. Within 500 years, the concept of race will be a thing of the past, as we will all be mixed together. This is certainly an evolution.

Highwaystar, I dont have time right now but Ill come back to your post in length later, but 3 quick points:

1. I never said bacteria evolve slowly. My argument is something else and it seems like you just like everyone is missing the point. Totally radically missing it. I am saying that bacteria have failed to evolve into higher order organisms, despite having amazing potential to evolve very rapidly. And that is the mystery you and others are denying to the point that it's becoming ridiculous. If you guys can't.. I don't know what to say. The intellectual capacity of some people...

2. You said "For a bacteria to become resistant to penicillin is a big evolution". It certainly is not. A simple single point mutation can be enough to alter a protein to prevent the antiobiotcs molecule to attach to the bacteria. Most antiobiotic resistance is simple like that.

3. That picture you got of the humanoid skulls. It can be devided in two groups: roughy half of the skulls are from old apes and half of them are Homo Sapiens.

Don't preach about intellectual capacity, when you're being intellectually dishonest about trying to comprehend what other people are trying to teach you about this particular field. I'll say it once more, because you seem to skip that part. Bacteria don't have neither the necessity to evolve into higher order organisms. Because prokaryotic cells functions are in most cases more advanced than eukaryotic cells, which need to work in tandem with one another to effectuate some of the functions that a single prokaryotic cell have.

This would be correct if you discarded the entire DNA repair systems that bacteria have to repair these kind of mutations. InDel mutations are amongst the easiest to be repaired. The examples of evolution through simple point mutation are extremely scarce and mostly irrelevant, unlike the case of MSRA adaptability. 

Recombination, transfection, transformation and transduction are the primary forces behind genomic evolution in bacteria. 

1. We're not denying it. Your original question was "We've gone through some things before, things I have problems with. Like the lack of evolution in bacteria.", how many ways can I interpret that? I interpreted it as you saying "there is a lack of evolution in bacteria" and that was the point I answered. I apopolgise if I misinterpreted.  But, let's have a go at answering that.

First off, we weren't there when multicellular life first arose, and I know that you are just going to outright deny that it occurred unless scientists more or less invented a time machine and went back in time to witness it.

Anyway, the general hypothesis is that unicellular life associated to form colonies (like stramatolites I guess), the collaborative nature of the colonies allowed them to exploit resources better than their unicellular counterparts. This was taken to the extreme to start forming multicellular life.

A similar kind of mechanism can be observed in myxobacteria, when nutrients are scarce they associate to form fruiting bodies, which is similar to a multicellular life form. It is easy to see how a more multi cellular life form can arise from this.

Anyway, I'm at Uni right now, so I'll keep it brief and give a more detailed response later. But here's a link in the meantime which can explain it better than I can.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=cell&part=A61

2. Well, you can see the need for developing new treatments to combat bacteria becoming resistant to our drugs however you want. But how about the transformation of acidophobe to acidophile of e-coli? That is a huge evolution, especially for 40,000 generations in a shorter time scale with an evolution much larger than just becoming drug resistant.

3. You're lying to yourself Slimebeast and you're blind to it. I don't know whether to feel sad for you or laugh it off quite frankly. Clearly only the last one is a homosapien's skull, and clearly the others aren't old ape skulls, ape skulls are pretty damn different (see the picture).Only the early ones bare any resemblance to an ape skull, and all that shows is that we had a common ancestor.

Also, out of interest, how do you explain our genetic similarity to other simians? I mean we have 96% similar genes to other great apes, and the phylogenetic tree (which is well substantiated) shows our relationship to them.

Also the fact that we share enderogenous retrovirus of identical insertion points in our genome.

I thought I read something these e-coli has loss some of it's ability to repair it's DNA so they couldn't survive outside the lab. This is like winning a million dollar  in a lottery after you bought 10 million dollars of tickets. If this is huge evolution it seems to be a huge loss. It's the same with our influnce over animals. In some ways they change for the better yet at the other hand they could not survive out in the wild.

Actually that was just a mid-step process that allowed them to change from Acidophobe to Acidophile. The original E.Coli strand uses for this long-term evolution experiment, strand Bc251 had genetic traits such as T6r, Strr, R-, m-, Ara-, meaning that they couldn't grow on minimal medium that contained only Arabinose, due to their Ara operon being disabled). At the same time, Ara  mutations were introduced on half the population, due to genetic manipulation.

During the first half of the generational study, most of the colonies showed adapatability to grow using Glucose for their metabolism, which at the same time led to the appearances of defects in their DNA repair system that lead to millions of mutations in this time lapse. Although in normal conditions this would have been fatal for the strands, 10 or 20 mutations were found to be beneficial. 

One of the mutations, after several recombination cycles, lead to the appearance of a strand that could use Citrate as source of energy, instead of Glucose. Normally, Wild Type (WT) E.Coli can't transport citrate through the cell membrane to the cell interior, thus it cannot fixate citrate in the Citric Acid Cycle in the presence of Oxygen - Aerobic respiration). This has been one of the defining characteristics from E.Coli, thus the label of Acidophobe given to the bacteria. 

This lead to the final suggestion that there was a contingency  of two or more mutations that recombined in a non-adaptive potentiating mutation in the genes that lead to coding proteins that allowed for the transport of Citrate to the interior of E.Coli cells.  

This wasn't the only change observed in these strands. Normally, WT E.Coli have a cylindrical shape and these ones had a more round shape. This was due to changes in the coding of the PBP proteins (Peptidoglycan Binding Proteins) for the cellular wall of E.Coli. This proved to be an efficient mechanism to out-compete WT E.Coli in the conditions proposed in the long-term evolution experiments. Though this also had a downside, since these E.Coli strands had a larger sensitivity to osmotic stress, thus a lower survivability rate on stationary phase cultures (when the conditions of the experiment are no longer sustained).

Thus, the assumption that the defects of the DNA repair system was a downside to this experiment, this is largely incorrect. Indeed, had it not been for errors in the correction of mutations, these changes would have never taken part, as prior to every recombination and division cycle, bacterial cells go through a lot of cellular check-points to test for unwanted mutations, when the DNA repair system is working accordingly (normal rate of permitted errors in the DNA polymerase II is 10^-6).