Bacterial evolution is limited? You sir know nothing about bacterial evolution. 

Eukaryotic life and evolution is but a small speck when compared to the amount of evolution that bacteria have suffered. If you compare the sheer number of species that bacteria and microbial life has managed to successfully create with the amount of evolution and different species that eukaryotic life has created, it would make complex life pretty laughable.

Human though processing is as essential to human evolution as plasmids recombination and transposition are to bacteria evolution. 

As I said, I'm not going dwell further on this topic. You're speaking about things you know nothing about. Come back to me when you have basic genomic knowledge, and comprehension as to how bacterial genomics are the founding steps for understanding our own genomic evolution.

There are hundreds of species that are highly social, interdependent and successful - dolphins, wolves, prairie dogs, ants, bees - so does that mean that ants have morals?

You describe morals as "general social rules" (bolded). Well, a wolf pack has very strict social rules. Rats have social rules too, like most mammals do. So are you saying that rats and wolves have morals?

I don't like your arrogance. You're not as intelligent as you imagine.

You don't understand your own field of study. I am not the best man to explain things, but I am amazed that you fail to see my point.

One one hand you are perfectly fine with the diversity of life on our planet. If someone would ask you, "how come all this variation, all these species and organs and genes and proteins from a single ancestor?" your reply would be, "mutations and natural selection over a long period of time".

But on the other hand, amazingly, despite working in the field in question, you fail to see the mystery of why bacteria haven't evolved into anything like that diversity described above, despite trillions of chances, despite an absolutely massive gene pool being present in all possible living conditions, having a high replication & mutational rate and being affected by extreme environmental & selective pressures during a very long time.

Ya, 6 legged people does not prove evolution. The fossil record, genetic similarities, retroviral DNA markers, observed speciation are all proofs of evolution.

Thunderf00t explains things well - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M&feature=related

Evolution is not random, it is written in our DNA the ability to evolve, scientists don't know how more than 90% of our DNA works, it's there where our capacity to evolve is written...

Also, DNA is a code, and there is no code known to man to be developed randomly by nature, all codes known come from intelligent beings, so DNA must have come from an intelligent being...

In my opinion you have a restricted view on reality.

So just because science is limited because of technological reasons, time, physical reality and whatever, you just resign and stop to ponder about our existense?

I don't work like that.

I have reasons to believe in a God, based on stuff we've gone through before and other stuff I haven't told you.

A human individual makes up his or her world view through experience, knowledge, observation and by logically putting it all together in your intellect, okay?

I can't wait for the 1000th monkey skeleton to be found which would prove beyond reasonable doubt that we in fact evolved from slime, through chimps to humans without any unnatural events or divine intervention, and meanwhile just "trust" the palenthological community based on a few fracture skulls and rely on their human error and bias. I'll be long dead by then.

Same with these what I choose to call "mysteries", unanswered phenomenons of reality that are very important in existential thinking and your world view. (big bang, something-out-of-nothing, the concept of the conscious mind, abiogenesis, absolute morals, etc etc all these questions that science has no answers to).

I simply can't wait for "hard" evidence for the above important phenomenons, I have to make up my world view now, based on the knowledge I have, the knowledge that we have today. And my conclusions are that God exists, he is reveled through Jesus and the current evolution theory doesn't fit very well with that. And without hard proof I have no strong reasons to believe in something that contradicts the rest of my world view.

While it does have some faults I believe in Irreducible complexity. Which states that many biological systems are too complex to have evolved on their own.

I've seen it before. Thunderfoot, I kinda like him, he is intelligent. But he can't explain human morals better than any other evolutionist.

I strongly believe in absolute morals. And the concept of absolute morals contradicts with the evolution of morals á la Thunderfoot's model.

(btw, a note to you Highwaystar: just because I ask something it doesn't mean that I don't know the answer. By now you should have noticed my style of discussion, my method to argue)

Please explain.  Even in vastly different cultural groups, humans have similar group behaivors.  Its wrong to kill for Aborigine Australians just as it is for Western Europeans (with some differening justifications each make ofcourse).  How can you consider this behaivor an instinct for humans but not for monkeys?

In fact, monkeys and humans have a lot of 'morals' in common.  They share resources (food and tools) and do not kill others in their group, but they go to war with other groups for land and resources.  Not much different than what humans do.