and yet it is still e. coli.  Write when it miraculously becomes something else.  That has and never will be proven.

Out of interest are Dawkins books any good or does he come across as a jerk, like he seems to in debates and interviews?

It is only "still" e. coli because we classify it as such. But who's to say we don't define e. coli as an organism that exclusively uses glucose as a carbon source and this new "evolved" organism uses citrate? They only call it e. coli still because the experiment was based off original e. coli cultures, and there hasn't been enough hindsight to say that this new organism is something different. Do you think that when man first became a biped, he turned around and looked at the generation before him and said they were something else?

If you want to get technical, an organism has set guidelines that defines what it is. And if that changes, by definition, it is a new organism. BAM evolution, in the most fundamental sense of the theory

The 12 cultures may still be e-coli, but they are all distinct from the original culture and from the other cultures. This evolution would continue and eventually speciation will occur. this is a well understood process.

But I take it you need directly observed speciation? The incredible fossil record that demonstrates the evolution of certain species into others and the well supported genetic evidence doesn't prove anything to you.

It has to be directly observed? I could throw names of species that have undergone observed  speciation at you, like Drosophila paulistorum. But I know that if you don't accept evolution based on the massive volumes of evidence that has already been collected, I know that providing examples of observed speciation wont do much more to change your mind. Sorry.

But what about the underwater cities and pyramids, the overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs walked with men and genius theories like the Hovind theory, you can't just scrap intellectual gold like that I tell you!

PS: Evolution is not only a lie according to some, it is also a religion (yes, this is actually how some people see it) and everyone who believes in it have closed minds, apparently.

No, they're really good. In the God delusion he comes of as a bit of a jerk. In his regular books he occasionally digresses to talk about creationism, but he mostly talks about evolution.

To be honest, I've adapted myself to just semi-skimming over a paragraph if he starts talking about creationists. To his credit though, he is always fair when it is due.

His books on evolution are very interesting though if you prefer the science. He can certainly paint a picture, he has a great ability to develop analogies that really help you understand what he is talking about.

highwaystar101 - There is absolutely no evidence like you say, but hey, you will continue to believe it anyway because you just refuse to believe that there is someone we will have to answer to.  One day your knees will bow and I hope before then that your eyes are opened my friend.

What has that got to do with accpeting scienitific evidence?

I studied aspects of palaeontology in my degree and have read numerous books on the subject. The evidence is there in vast quantities (and in this case right in front of you), that some people resolutely refuse to accept or even acknowledge it is beyond me.

what? He didn't say there's absolutely no evidence. He said there IS evidence that is documented, but because YOU didn't observe it directly as it happened (even though that's not possible because the records go back thousands of years) you refuse to believe it. 

But you know what, I could do the same thing about the Bible.....

There is absolutely no evidence but you will continue to believe it because you refuse to believe there are other answers out there besides "God did it". One day you'll be overwhelmed with knowledge pertaining to how we got where we are today and on that day I hope your mind will be open enough to accept it, because people become very insensitive and aggressive when they find out that what they believe is incorrect in any way, shape, or form

But then again...you didn't directly observe the events in the Bible, so why are you so sure that "there is someone we will have to answer to"? Blind faith? Because in all the religious studies I've witnessed, just about every religion was brought about out of lack of understanding how the world works so stories were made up to make sense of things, and use fear to make sure we live a good life. (live this way, or burn in hell. Anyone?) I mean, obvious common sense principles that govern how we live (don't steal, murder, etc) and reinforced by saying if you don't do this, you will be eternally punished

^ Do what you will and believe what you will, I will believe the Bible.