"

We've already went through this case on VGC and debunked it. It does not demonstrate evolution before our eyes.

For all we know the skunks choice between laying eggs or giving birth could be regulated by temperature or some other externally regulated mechanism."

The whole point, that you are missing, is that evolution comes from these kinds of natural variation. Think about the way humans are. They say "you can be anything". It's not really true is it? ALL humans combined have the capability to be anything, but one single person cannot be anything, because they are not predisposed to EVERYTHING. Compare it to the skink.Humans do not have the choice to be ANYTHING, because they cannot be EVERYTHING. You can't take the southern skink and move it north and then suddenly it births differently. In the same way, you can't just say "be a baseball player", because even reared from birth not everyone has what it takes, physically and mentally.

So, you make a situation where only baseball players can mate. Due to their genes and ability, most of their kids will be able to play baseball very competantly. Let's now move them to the mountain range. But, I'm now bored of baseball, so I introduce a new qualifier for reproduction, say, has no body hair, or only sweet handlebar mustaches, or their legs exceed a proportion of body length.

Now say AIDS ravages my population. Currently, 1% of people are immune to HIV. The only ones left are immune. Now my mini race is all HIV-immune athletes with handlebar mustaches. This only took a couple hundred years to acheive. Now think about what I could do with 7 million.

Actually, yes they have changed...every organim will change through genetic drift alone. It is impossible for a species to remain exactly the same for millions of years. 

The onus is on you (not me) to prove your assertation that they have not changed...please show a species (pick any that you like, ANY) that has not changed at all in the millions of years of it's existence. 

What about Coelacanth?  I'd need to research it to be sure but I'm pretty sure there's little change noted there.  Given their nature I seem to remember from biology (long time ago now for me) that there were quite a few fish that hadn't changed compared to their fossil record?

extinction level events barely affect mid-deep sea, and the only thing that ever changes is the temperature, and maybe migration of other fish.

Additionally, there have been lots of evolutions to the coelacanth. There are like 20 species that come from coelacanth. It's just that coelacanth was still able to survive as well. Again, evolution is not some process that happens to the species over time. It is characterized by violent changes in the characteristics, and reproduction from only specific members. Evolution doesn't necessitate the grand parent dying out.

I know evolution doesn't mean the orginal strains dying out.  I was just remembered something about there being examples of fish that show very little change vs available fossil records.  Clearly you'd expect sea based life to have more examples of minimal evolution.

Check out this link: http://listverse.com/2010/05/14/top-10-prehistoric-fish-alive-today/

These are the more "interesting" of living complex creatures, but there are thousands of single celled organisms and prehistoric plant life underwater compared to a very very small handful of land animals. Even the Land animals that have aged well are amphibious, like crocs, turtles, salamanders, etc.

I didn't mean to imply that you thought it meant original strain dying out, I just wanted to clarify for others by using your example, as I did here with the above link and accompanying text.

And my dog is 10 years old and hasn't evolved! That's like 70 human years and he's still the same!!!

I think the main thing to realize is its just a theory and will remain so. So really, I see no difference in people who put faith in the Bible and God and those who put their faith in a theory and imperfect men (though still very bright) to know all the answers to life. One thing that I do know for certain, though, is that both sides need to quit insulting and attacking the other. Believers in Creationism shouldn't feel they are better people than those that believe in evolution. And people who believe in evolution shouldn't feel they are vastly superior intellectually just because they believe in said theory. I know that doesn't describe everyone under the discussion, but I do sense that air of superiority from some of you.

just a theory. As if there is anything better in science than that, and yet we've used our theories to do impossible things, things more impossible than miracles.

There is.  Its called a law.