That's a basic, mandatory question that has to be asked of course, and has to be answered. 
It's not satisfying in this case though. Bacteria are too many, too competitive in so many ways. That argument can be used, the argument about niches and competition, in many cases (such as the giraffe has a long neck so he eats all the high leafs etc, so the antilope never got a chance to really compete with the master giraffe, therefor antiliopes and shit dont have long necks) but bacteria is a different case because the scale is so extreme. Just think about it, you have 10 pounds of bacteria in your body at any given moment. Those guys are everywhere.

Yes, of course. And Im sure u agree (to a degree).

Bacteria probably compete with other organisms, and sometimes they win, and whipe out the competition. Im sure u beleive that happens all the time through evolution history.

"Pressure" is a relative term. There's always some degree of pressure in any environment (or population, depends on what perspective youre looking from) to compete and to evolve. I mean, that's the fundamental principle for evolution theory!!!!!!

(also u could imagine a case where bacteria invents their own, but complex, unique niches - because surely u aint saying that new radically different species will never evolve on earth anymore?)

After read many books on evolution, such as the Origin of Species, the Blind Watchmaker, and a variety of biology books, i realized that many of these theories based around evolution are true. I still believe that there is some sort of deity that started life, but i can see how animals could evolve through natural selection. So to say it short.

I believe in Evolution

The only problem with that Akuma is that if evolution was only within species you would still expect similar species to be near it due to it being what's best for that particular enviorment.

Convergent Evolution is ironically a good example of this.

Birds and Bats both have wings yet their last common ancestor did not.

It does not seem impossible that a creature could develop a system that is very similar to another less complex creature.

I can prove intelligent design is bullshit. Wisdom teeth and birth defects.
If our design ever was intelligent, it's pretty fucked up now.

also redundant DNA, and the sharing of 98% of our genes with champanzees. There are alot of evidences.

You do realize that bacteria is asexual right?  This means that unlike sexual multicellular organisms they do not procreate and the effect is that the bacteria they create through binary fission are identical to them with the only exception being possible mutations.  The original bacteria and any future bacteria it produces are not guaranteed to have the new trait or any new trait.

It is extremely easy for asexual populations to take divergent evolutionary paths and truly needs no special explanation because statistically they are not just capable of diverging with one path changing and the other staying static, but it is in fact highly likely.  Only in scenarios where an evolutionary path becomes untenable for survival in the environment would it actually die off, meaning that all sorts of divergent paths with little or even no actual advantage could stick around for long periods of time (this is why bacteria come in different "strains".  It is because it is extremely easy for them to diverge given their fairly unique characteristics).

Even then in the case of bacteria the older versions typically do not die out completely but become dormant or find other ways of surviving until conditions become more hospitable.  They are a particularly resilient brand of life and their resiliency combined with their asexual reproduction explains fully, clearly, and without any inconsistency why they are capable of having highly adaptive populations while also having extremely stable populations.

I understand that many have objections to evolution but I don't think there is a very strong case to be made on the subject of bacterial evolution as it is a very well understood area both scientifically and statistically.  If what you were suggesting had some credence it would be a simple matter of formulating a mathematical proof to disprove macro-evolution using the statistical improbabilities you're claim.  There has certainly been plenty of intelligent and capable individuals who could have done this and would love to have done it as they could make an absolutely massive name for themselves, yet they have not.  This area of statistics and probability is not even a particularly difficult area and I have a hard time believing such a contentious topic has not been examined from this angle thoroughly. 

If however I'm wrong on that and this has not been explored I would encourage you to produce such a proof as a simple course in statistics and probability would be more than sufficient to do so.

I present you evidence of a fact that doesn't jive with what you believe, so you dismiss the evidence. Not nice.

Damn bedtime. Now don't you all discuss too much until tomorrow!

 I tried to make your post semi-readable. I hope you don't mind. My response is going to be a simple two words and hopefully you will respond with something relevant. Testable Hypotesis. Without it you have no theory, you have little to no evidence, and you cannot enter it into a serious scientific debate. This is not a conspiracy against "outside the box" thinkers. This is a request made to everyone who attempts to replace a currently accepted theory. If you cannot provide one, then youe hypothesis is not scientifically sound.

 Evolution has been demonstrated repeatedly. Antibiotics are limited in use, and cycled because bacteria will evolve and become resistant to it. Various insects become immune to pesticides. The only thing we have yet to prove experimentally is a change from one species to another, but there is other evidence that helps support the arguement on that front. None of it comes from a mid-90s SciFi show based on a ficitional (and extremely improbable) future.