Well, some scientists classify Neanderthals as the same species, just a different sub species. Just as some scientists classify the three major races, caucasian, mongoloid, and negroid as different subspecies of homosapiens.

I seem to recall reading an article that gave the genetic difference between the three main human races is greater then the difference beteen some species.

So basically what you think is that you can justify the genocide of black/white/asian people based on evolution?

Man you are barking up the wrong bush with these claims Tyranical.

That's what Darwin's theory seems to imply.

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 may have to look deeper into this asexual thing, but from a first glance gene recombination, while being important, shouldnt really be a statistical difference maker for driving evolution. It's just one of many factors. Actually your notation raises anther question - why havent bacteria evolved sexual reproduction?

 I  may have to look deeper into this asexual thing, but from a first glance gene recombination, while being important, shouldnt really be a statistical difference maker for driving evolution. It's just one of many factors. Actually your notation raises anther question - why havent bacteria evolved sexual reproduction?

I would like to address some flawed assumptions regarding Slimebeast's problem of why we don't have multicellular prokaryotic organisms. (Skip to the end if you don't want to read the wall of text.)

Firstly there seems to be an assumption that somehow multicellular organisms are the pinnacle of evolution and therefore prokaryotic organisms in time should, due to selective pressure evolve into this 'higher' multicellular form. The design of evolution, if we can state it this way, is survival, not specialisation, complexity or diversity per se. The fact that bacteria accounts for more of the earth's biomass than all eukaryotes suggest that perhaps their form, i.e. unicellular is in fact the superior life form in the eyes of evolution.

Secondly we are ignoring a very simple fact regarding prokaryotic cell respiration. Regardless of the huge scope of the bacterial genome it is still bound by the laws of physics. Prokaryotic cell respiration occurs in the cytoplasm and across the plasma membrane, thus it is constrained by the cells surface area to volume ratio. If cells group together, as is the case with some forms of prokaryotes which demonstrate some degree of specialisation, you are still constrained by how efficiently the external cells can respire across a limited cell surface area. Now perhaps bacteria can evolve to increase the concentration of respiratory chain proteins expressed on the cell surface but ultimately that still has it's limits. Perhaps a folded cell membrane could evolve but maybe that makes the bacteria more susceptible to other environmental pressures. If there is indeed a constraint on prokaryotic multicellularity due to simple physical principles then that in turn would account for lack of variation within prokaryotes as there is limited number of changes that could occur within such a simple individual cell that are compatible with survival. Multicellularity allows a greater degree of diversity as cells can specialise and change to a much larger degree without necessarily adversely affecting survival of the organism.

So you question evolution based on the assumption of inevitable multicellularity, which you assume imparts survival benefit, while ignoring the fundamental constraints placed on prokaryotes by their method of respiration. This is not a strong basis on which to question a theory which has held up remarkably well over 150 years.

Seriously dude, are you even paying attention?  A lot of them DO sexually reproduce (though not in the way you would think of sexual reproduction normally-more along the lines of genetic recombination with the help of plasmids and various other means).  And a lot of bacteria DID eventually evolve into organisms that sexually reproduce.  Where do you think we came from?

And there are plenty of advantages to asexual reproduction.  It takes less time, it doesn't require a mate, it can typically happen much faster, and it takes less resources to do.  Not to mention it works very nicely if you are a single-celled organism.  You are assuming that bacteria that don't sexually reproduce HAVE A NEED to sexually reproduce.  Traits are not favored through unnatural selection if they don't benefit a species.  Thus, many bacteria have been extremely successful using asexual reproduction and never selected in the direction of sexual reproduction.