Pointless thread, if the goal is to change someone's mind. Those who deny evolution will never accept it regardless of all the evidence one might present to them.  Why? because all the evidence is purposely misleading  by an evil force to get one to question faith.  Simple.

I'm sorry to interrupt in your discussion, but just my 2 cents.

Enough said and please carry on

You don't get much for 2 cents anymore.

That's because you got  to have the "evolution gene" to believe in evolution and supernatual selection.

People need to understand the flawed thinking behind a "succesful species" and species owning their niche so that they "don't have the need to" evolve into something else.

Let's look at bacteria again. I acknowledge they are highly successful. They own tons of niches! We all accept this. But, here's the thing - the one bacteria, or the little isolated population of bacteria behind a certain rock, or in the stomach of a rabbit, or whereever, for that particular isolated population it doesn't matter if bacteria as a group of organisms are successful or not! You don't know if that particular population is successful right there, right now! They might not be. You must realize that every single bacteria is an independent entity, every single one of them has the potential to break away from it's current niche and conquer another one. You can't deny these guys the same chance to diversify under the exact same rules that you base the evolution of all life resulting in extreme variation of life on earth. There's always a niche out there to be conquered for any individual or group of individuals! There's always environmental factors at work against every individual, selecting  and giving potential for an individual or population to mutate and evolve into something different.

It annoyes me that evolutionist are so blind to this fact. And I meet the same flawed thinking every time.

I'm Christian but I'm not a creationist, nor I a deny the occurence of speciation. I just question the scientific basis of the theory of evolution as it is understood today. I do not deny evolution (whatever it is), I just find that the theory of evolution (which is a specific theory) is flawed. For example I think that a few concepts of quantum mechanics are misunderstood (especially the Scroedinger's cat paradox and the entanglement), however I do not deny quantum mechanics as a whole.
Back to the alleged experiments on speciation: I find these experiments flawed or (at least) inconclusive. The fact that the two different populations of fruit flies do not mate, proves nothing since their appearence is different. A similar behaviour was observed among cichlids (fishes from the family Cichlidae). Cichlids in the Lake Victoria display about 500 different colour morph, and these populations are isolated through mate choice, that is they choice their mates by color pattern. In the 90s, Human activity caused the water of Lake Victoria to become murky, so cichlids could not differentiate themselves anymore in some areas of the lake and began to interbreed (producing fertile offspring). Mating and interbreeding are two different concepts, that the fruit flies experiments never take into account.

I believe that everyone wants to believe that they are right !

I didn't see god make the universe so clearly that didn't happen. =P

I have seen a chef breath fire to ignite my dish into flames, I forgot the name of it, green beans and a mess of different sea foods. mmmmm. Oh but yea, I think that Chef may be on to something.

What if god breathed fire to make something delicious.

It was a Paella, I just remembered ^_^. The dish is called Paella de Montezuma.

So since life is clearly delicious maybe god is a chef. ^_^

I remember a while ago I read I believe it was one of the books of Abraham or something, where it reffered to god not as a being or essance but a status more a kin to being used as an adjective to the subject followed by a verb. Ah but I can't remember if it was Abraham or the guy who fathered Solomon. Eh.

Either way the bible is admittidly a way to remember the ancient kings/queens Hebrew and Others. Anything from the Mediterranian to the Dead sea.

As for that book I was talking about, I was reading for the kicks as it turned out the book was about Alchemy and more specifically homonculi, it had some interesting concepts, which unlike the number "0" never caught on. But as it turned out the book was very closely related to the Hebrew variation to the bible or the Jewish version, whatever.

Your examples of social communities (like apes) that work well together for the best of their survival though social interactions, have their behaviour and rules based purely on instincts.

But the rules and behaviour in human societies are not only based on instincts. They are also based on morals, which requires intellectual thinking and decisions and is something entirely different than genetically programmed instincts.

Yes science is limited by certain factors, all fields are. But the range of the limitations is what is important, having limitations is not an absolute state.

For some fields we can only merely speculate on what is occurring due to a lack of evidence caused by extreme limitations. Other fields are limited, but not limited to any major degree, so we have enough evidence to come up with a reasonable and logical explanation. Evolution falls under the latter.

Yes we have a lack of fossils the further back through time you go (as in hundreds of millions of years) for various geological reasons, that is a limitation; but that limitation does not hinder the fact that enough evidence has been collected to show that evolution occurs.

Even so, we will work hard to overcome that limitation so that we can better define and understand the concept of evolution.

The answer is not complete, but it's good enough to understand what happens. We just always want a better one.

If I can suggest some reading, Isaac Asimovs The relativity of wrong.

...

Palaeontology goes through an extremely rigorous peer review process with nothing being accepted without hard evidence, and takes years of dedication by millions of people around the world, and has done so for centuries. I don't know why you seem to think that it is guess work with an error rate of 99%.

And I don't "trust" these people, I am occasionally sceptical about claims I hear made, and I certainly don't think they hold all the answers. But I am willing to give them credit for their hard earned expertise.

...

I've said it before Slimebeast, and each time I'm a little worried about offending, and I apologise if I do. But I shall say it again anyway. I think that you have been presented with enough evidence for evolution over this website (and through other sources I imagine), and I know that you're a very bright person and fully understand what you are being presented with, but you find it conflicting with your faith. As such, whenever I debate you I always feel as though you feel as though you are compelled to refuse evolution, regardless of what you are presented with. Your last paragraph pretty much summed this up for me.