You are confusing me like crazy. dsgrue himself said "Evolution is also not a cause, it is an effect."

I'm starting to think that my confusion on evolution is due to confusion amongst evolutionists.

Science does not require faith. Results of experiments are repeatable. You don't seem to understand that.

Evolution isn't an "effect of random mutations" it's a spontaneous event. Did you even read the source I provided concerning e. coli? Maybe try reading a source before commenting upon it?

Did you read about phylogeny? No, you didn't. You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm giving you sources and you aren't even reading them and then wonder why I come across as condescending. You are so opposed to finding out the truth because it would ultimately prove your belief completely ridiculous.

I read the E.Coli article and didn't comment on the phylogeny yet so hold your tongue.

In the E.Coli article, the gene needed to consume citrate was dormant. I'm hoping this isn't the case for bacteria to human evolution. Otherwise, how did the dormant gene get there in the first place.

This isn't very complex stuff tbh. Easy question, do you think you're more intelligent than I am?

EDIT: My concerns about in-breeding in mammals and the constraints to intra-species cross-breeding are still not addressed. Odds are they will never be, because evolution is not the answer.

I might have been a bit too harsh with words, but there is a lot of confusion about what evolution is. I'd recommend you read up on "natural selection" as that may clear things up quite a bit. In short, it means: the best adapted survive and reproduce, thus making the species stronger (ie evolving). This is a very "layman" definition so if you want to know more I'd suggest checking a credible source concerning evolution and natural selection.

Although I do not believe in God, I don't see any reason why intelligent design and evolution cannot co-exist (altough the idea of inteligent design seems a bit ridicilous to me).

Exactly, you only addressed one aspect of my statement. Probably because you didn't even read about phylogeny. 

No, you didn't read the E.Coli article because that isn't what it said at all.

"The ability of the Ara–3 E. coli to chow down on the alternative food source took at least three steps to develop, carried out over more than 13,000 generations.

Step one, which the researchers call potentiation, set the stage for developing the citrate-eating ability.

Step two, called actualization, was much more obvious; a stretch of DNA containing a dormant gene for moving citrate into cells was copied and the copy was inserted near the original gene.

Step three, refinement, took another 1,500 to 2,000 generations (about a year in the lab, or 30,000 to 40,000 years worth of human evolution) before the bacteria could make full use of the new food source."

Genetics isn't complicated? LMFAO. I can say with 95% confidence that I am more intelligent than you are, yes.

Inbreeding an cross-breeding don't have anything to do with evolution. This is now the 4th time I've said this. If I have to say it again, we're done here.

You probably just copy-pasted the article, as that's pretty much all your limited intelligence allows you to do. You must've missed this part:

"Step two, called actualization, was much more obvious; a stretch of DNA containing a dormant gene for moving citrate into cells was copied and the copy was inserted near the original gene. The copied and pasted version of the gene started producing the citrate-pumping protein again. Before the duplication, E. coli couldn’t bring citrate into their cells to eat it."

You, my friend, are a tart.

EDIT: Saying inbreeding and cross-breading don't have anything to do with evolution doesn't make it true. It doesn't answer my concern at all, not in any way. When it comes to speciation (the generation of new species via evolutive processes), these constraints pose a BIG problem imho.

@1. I understand all that. I don't know how what I said denies that. Anything can be described to varying degrees. My "Evolution is an effect of random mutations" is only one part of my understanding of it. It's also an effect of natural selection and the survival/elimination of genes in a given context.

I understand all of that. You weren't only harsh, you jumped the gun. And that ties into OP, as to why I don't enjoy talking with evolutionists. I constantly find myself being labelled or lambasted wrongly. Granted I'm not all knowing, but I'm often told I don't know something when I know it (e.g. dsgrue telling me "You realize that America was colonized before Christopher Columbus", when I had said just before that America saw human migration ~15k yeas ago).  dsgrue telling me that evolution is an effect and not a cause, something I already knew. You telling me the contrary.

I'm just getting annoyed about your attitudes to be completely honest.

You attributed one of three steps to the entirety of the process which shows a fundamental ineptitude to reason.

Furthermore, "dormant gene" does not mean even remotely close to the implications you've drawn. Again, another gross misunderstanding.

Wow, if you think cross-breeding has anything to do with evolution, you are quite slow. That shows a fundamental lack of understanding. Grab a book on phylogeny or a source I've provided and start reading. You're clueless.

Don't comment until you understand phylogeny as it is paramount to ending your nonsensical questions.

Woah, woah this is not fair. Don't lump me in with "evolutionists" or with any poster in this topic. I'm just letting you know your definition of evolution is very off. It really is. Random mutations do play a part in the grand scheme of things but they are just that: random. The evolution of life is a very driven, logical and determined process, it's not random at all.

You are right and wrong. You may believe you are right in the religious arguments you speak of, but the religious person disagrees and says they're right.
Do you know what that is called? Opinion. And opinion isn't something you can really debate over.
I hate arguing about religion with anyone, even though I am religious I can't stand many religious people, same goes with many atheists/"non-believers." It's just how things go, and I doubt it will ever change.