But if mutations kept occuring then one day it would be a new species.

I agree... but there has yet to be a conclusive proof of this.

The same could be said of fruit flys and tons of other species.  The only surprising thing of that article is that it happened so fast with lizards who are fairly complex beings.

Until interbreeding is impossible you can't really call it a knew species anymore as the biological theory of species is the current widely accepted mdoel.

Which is another funny as thing though... we aren't even sure what a species is or should be.  I

What some call Macroevolution is a long proccess tyo be fair and I'm sure many scientists have been trying their best to observe it and have resulted in positive findings. Perhaps not conclusive enough for some, but very positive. I refer you to the homind skulls I posted on the last page as evidence of this.

Either way it would take a long time to directly monitor such a change, we won't witness a 100% change from one species to another in our lifetime. That's the thing, I'm sure many scientists are 100% certain of macroevolution and are searching, rather successfully, for evidence elsewhere.

That said a lot of people opinions on webpages I have visited in research seem to suggest that macro and micro evolution are just buzzwords made up by creationists made up so that when evolution was proved on a small scale they could still try to argue against it.

Evoloution is a racist theory invented by a racist man that justifies racism. Wouldn't you prefer if God created and loved all men equally?

http://ministries.tliquest.net/theology/evolution/Darwin's%20Racism.html

Darwin’s primary racist viewpoints summed up:

1. Humans are divided into sub-species
2. The strongest live and the weakest die, which is good (Hitler and Marx agreed)
3. The sub-species are not simply variants
4. A "race war" would be beneficial to mankind
5. Blacks and Aborigines occupy a sub-species between Apes and Caucasians
6. The extinction of blacks and gorillas to advance the white "race" is good
7. Sub-species are also known as races
8. Different sub-species have different characteristics, such as mental capabilities
9. Irish are also non-Aryan and should be extinct
10. Europe doesn’t owe any ancestry to the Greeks
11. It would be good if a wealthy nation replaces a less privileged race
12. Christianity is a damnable doctrine, and Hitler agreed saying it is a rebellion against nature
13. Social Darwinism includes imperialism, racial extermination and sexual inequality and Darwinism was intended to explain society as a whole
14. "lower class" races should not normally be cared for; they should not multiply and should become extinct

This is the silliest thing I've read so far in this thread :)

Charles Darwin's political beliefs and Social Darwinism has about as much to do with the Theory of Evolution as the Bible with the Crusades or the Koran with suicide bombers.

You do realise that even if Darwthein was a racist it doesn't actually effect the validity of the theory of evolution? Any and all of Darwins personal views are entirely irrelevant to whether evolution is correct.

Its not a matter of what we would prefer, its a matter of what is.

Rath hit this dead on, it matters not what we would prefer to be the truth.  It has absolutely no bearing on reality as every adult is all too well aware.  The only way our preferences have any effect on reality is when we put forth the effort to make that preference into a reality and I don't think anyone would suggest that this is actually possible in the case of a preference for a theory such as this.

If, for example, Einstein had been an outspoken white supremecist I would still have a tremendous amount of respect for his scientific work and his intuitive genius.  He wouldn't, and shouldn't, get a pass for his racists views but his discoveries would not and should not be thrown away simply because he held a viewpoint we find offensive today.

The same is true of many of our founding fathers actually (USA), their racism is a tragic fact of history but should not lessen the greatness of their ideas and their words.  Those ideas and words exist seperate from their incomplete devotion to them and their inability to see their own hypocracy.  Everyone has hypocracy in their beliefs and actions in some way, it doesn't make their contribution to society incorrect or worthy of being shunned.

There is actually a phrase for such an argument that many here are probably familiar with: ad hominem

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

In short it is not a valid form of intellectual debate because no man is perfect and if we are asked to only accept theories from the idealistic picture of a great man, of which no ill thing can be said, then science simply becomes an impossibility.

PS - And yes I'm using "man" in the gender inclusive sense of "mankind".

Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where milk and honey flows, and everything is exactly how you like it to be?

Well, guess what: There's a difference between imagination and reality.

So much wrong with this post but at least it's clear which side of the debate you fall on.  Since you have so quickly resorted to attacking the man behind the theory we can conclude that you have discovered  that you can't reasonably argue against evolution.

EPIC FAIL

So the truth should be shunned because of one persons views? By that logic I could shun god because it had some pretty harsh views on the world...

God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. Genesis. 6:7, 17

"And the LORD said unto Moses, Stretch out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians." Exodus 14:26

The Israelites find a man picking up sticks on the sabbath. God commands them to kill him by throwing rocks at him. Numbers. 15:32-36

At God's instructions, the Israelites "utterly destroyed the men, women, and the little ones" leaving "none to remain." Deuteronomy. 2:33-36

God will kill those who hate him. Deuteronomy. 7:10

God will kill children and young men, and the dead bodies "shall fall as dung .... and none shall gather them." Jeremiah. 9:21-22

Will I disregard the idea of a creator from science based on these exerts from the bible, no. Will I listen to the facts, yes.

If gravity was discovered by a racist and not sir Isaac Newton, would you deny it's existence based on that?