sounds like you were just trying to prove my point...?  

its all a lot like those "truthers"...  they hear the "truth" and dont really care about anything else and will just attack people until everyone thinks like them.  everyone else is just a bunch of stupid jerk offs because they dont agree with you and are willfully blind to your own "truth"

What's so mysterious about morals? Us humans are social animals that live in societies based on interdependence. This is actually one of the main reasons for our success as a species.  Morals are nothing more than general socieal rules that need to be respected in order for people to be able to live together. All social animals (ants, bees, chimps etc.) modify their behaviour in order to restrain selfishness and make group living possible. Basically morality has the purpose of restricting excessive individualism and promoting cooperation.

That's a perfect example of what I already said: a dogmatic approach to science can only hurt science. The first point of that faq: "Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization" is not speciation, the first example is about Oenothera gigas and Oenothera lamarckiana. Oenothera gigas is not classified as a species (nor as a subspecies, it's just a mutation) anymore, while Oenothera lamarckiana is a defunct name for Oenothera glazioviana (so that faq uses outdated infos) -> http://plants.usda.gov/java/ClassificationServlet?source=profile&symbol=OENOT&display=63. Polyploidy occurs in humans too -> http://faculty.clintoncc.suny.edu/faculty/Michael.Gregory/files/Bio 100/Bio 100 Lectures/Genetics- Human Genetics/human.htm (and no, polyploid humans are not considered a different species). About the speciations in plant species not involving polyploidy, that article doesn't mention the names of the new species. The maize example is quite laughable: a well known effect of inbreeding is the reduction in fertility.

As for the animals, it's all about those damned fruit flies: what's the name of the new species of fruit flies created from the drosophila melanogaster?

Charles Darwin wasn't an atheist himself. Really, no part of the Theory of Evolution suggests that God had no part in it. Indeed, it seems plausible that He started the whole process, and perhaps even designed it, since the purpose of evolution is to make an organism as well-optimised and efficient as possible.

But that's a question of philosophy, and not of biology.

In animals, hybridization/polyploid is not a great way for speciation, but for plants since they are capable of sustaining fast chromosomal duplication. The key thing in speciation is when two varients of the same species's genetic composition is so different that they cannot interbreed with each other. As for the fruit flies, Diane Dodd showed in a lab using drosophila pseudoobscura and through reproductive isolation and new food diet, and in only 8 generations, the two fly groups could not interbreed.

To say that there's never been speciation is foolish. I assume you are a Christian Creationist(if you are not, I apologize). If there was no speciation, how could there be such a diversity of life after the flood? Do you Noah could have stored 2 million species(those are just the ones that have been discovered. Scientists estimate there could be up to 50 million species, and there are many extinct species that Noah probably took on the ark)? That's means there were at the least 4,050,000 species since Noah took 7 of each bird).

The amount of life, monuments, fossils, etc  on earth support that life could've existed on this planet for thousands, millions or even billions (in theory) unlike the bible which believers say everything started sometime around 6000 years ago. It was definitely a long time, especially with oil deposits within the earth which can only be replicated after thousands of years after its been depleted. Thanks to us and our burial/lifestyle habits this process might take much longer than ever before. Look how much oil has been created, spent and used to pollute this planet rather than leave it as a source of life, much like the blood that respectively runs through our veins. This planet seems to have a natural sustenance and recreation style second only after the support it gets from its precise distance from the sun. It seems in our solar system life begets life. The true question isn't "how old is the earth?".....The real question is how old is the sun?  From there we can start to understand how everything within its circle works more appropriately. The bible isn't helping anyone with half a brain.

Wait, how exactly does a six legged baby prove that Macroevolution is true?  I'm not doubting evolution as I believe it is true, but surely I've missed the reason why folks aren't poking fun at that?  If anything it proves mutants.

You cannot win the debate either.

Yes, you just showed how extreme the environmental pressure is on bacteria, with them being present in all possible environments on earth. That's the point, to address how successful and prevalent bacteria are and show its implications in the context of the rate of evolution that would be expected from them. Despite bacteria being everywhere, in massive numbers, under all sorts of environmental pressures, yet they have remained on the primitive micro level, having only conquered niches on the single-cell micro level.

Because the individual bacteria doesn't care if bacteria as a group of organisms have conquered the earth. Every individual of bacteria tries to survive, and every individual bacteria has potential to evolve into something different, something more complex. But they don't. Why is that? You need to ask yourself why bacterial evolution is so limited, so narrow, compared to the eukaryotic line of life. 

Bacteria is the prime example of (so called) micro-evolution never becoming "macro-evolution".

lol

My short objection on your reply:  morals =/= behaviour based on instinct.

I'm sorry but your logic doesn't work. By your reasoning an theory can't be valid unless it answers 100% of the questions posed to it.

Well I've got news for you, the world doesn't work like that, and if that were the case you would have dismiss pretty much all science.

Science is the search for an answer, and something like most fields of science evolution doesn't have a simple answer for everything; so we have to research, find and interpret evidence, and discover the answer; this has been an ongoing process for the last 150 years. No one is going to say the current model of evolution is 100% complete, and I'm sure everyone will happily admit that there are things we just don't know about.

What we do know is that a lot of evidence supports the theory of evolution, we know it has happened and we know it is happening. We can't explain all the details, but more than enough evidence exists to show that it does happen.

Applying your logic to another situation could be done with gravity. We know gravity exists, but don't know everything about it (not by a long shot). Does this mean that gravity doesn't exist because we don't know everything about it, despite enough evidence existing to prove its existence? No. Of course not.

Yet you've applied this same logic to evolution.