We have acutally...there are lizard types that are identical except for reproductive organs. The same lizard can be oberseved living in mountains and using internal carrying mechanisms for child rearing and lower on the same island they lay eggs...other than that identical species....demonstrates adaptability to ones envrionment which is a principle of evolution.

If you're implying there is any merit to creationism you're a kook or a really good comedian...

We breeded already bacteria with multiple resistances against different antibiotica. So we oberved bacteria to evolve into another bacteria.

I don't know much about fruitflies. Maybe there exist observations. But I know about animal breeding. That actually gave Darwin the basic idea about the workings of evolution. Many in this thread showed the evolution from wolf to dog. There you has observation of the evolution from one species to another.

 We have many experiments to deduce how organic molecules could be come into existance from the environment in the early earth.

The Miller-Urey-experiment was a very early step for this. The formation of other molecules used in modern biological life has be shown in other experiments.

Experiments also show the emergence of protocells as another step to life.

 From the absence of observation of evolution you heard of, you deduce the FACT that we are not the product of evolution. Man, you are no skeptic. A skeptic would say: I'm not sure you are a product of evolution.

And even complete absence of observations of evolution (and the examples are given, that we observed it already) does not mean we have no evidence. We have fossil evidence, genetic observations and more like that. And we discovered so many strange things, that every creational theory has a hard time to explain, but evolution theory can explain.

Do you know about the human eye? The optical nerves from the sensoric cells lead INTO the eye. They are in the path of the light, before it hits the sensoric cells. And they need to be lead outside to the brain. Thats the blind spot: every creator making such stuff, has to be drunk or an idiot. It's much easier to explain with evolution. In early eyes with only some sensoric cells and without focusing lenses, it didn't matter, in which direction the nerves are routed. So it was up to chance. Later on the eyes step for step developed into modern eyes. To redirect the nerves, it would've been needed to go some steps back - such mutation could see worse and therefore weren't selected. So it stayed uncorrected. In the eyes of an octopus the chance was more in favor of a clever constructed eye.

Wolfs gave birth to more dog-like wolfs, that gave birth to even more dog-like wolfs, that ..., that gave birth to a dog.

WTF?! Dude, I couldn't care less about young earth creationists, never mind the fact that I'm not even a Christian. I actually look up this info on my own.

And I've already read that link. But there's a lot of logical fallacies in there, particularly the apes and humans part. It doesn't matter how much we spin circumstantial evidence to support our claims...macroevolution will remain a theory until concrete, undeniable proof is brought forward, with all parameters checked.

Until then, like I said: Microevolution is what's established as an undeniable fact (and I have no doubts about any bit of its scope)...macroevolution is not even close to that point.

and so will gravitation until we find the cause I guess

until then non-believers are free to fly away

Difference: Gravitation is substantiated. Strongly. VERY strongly.

why ? because we don't fall off this rock in space?

we never discovered the elementary particle or wave/energy whatever that actually causes it

And we should keep looking, I mean, who knows what we could find. But as it is now, the logic and reason behind gravity, which is supported by numerous tests, is the closest we've got.

Both = same thing.

Macroevolution is just minor changes that have built up over a long period of time. Evolution between species has been observed in the fossil record.

Also the theory of gravity is a bad comparison. Gravity still confuses the hell out of scientists - evolution doesn't.

Yeah, I think huaxiong90 mixed up Macroevolution and Macromutation.

And me!  I loooove debating mythology!