Your joke posts aren't very funny.

For the most part no, Neanderthals is an extremely different case. Let me list the things that are wrong with your argument.

1.) Neither society was significantly more advanced. Both had discovered basic tool making but neither had advanced as far as farming. Essentially both were in the stone age.

2.) Humans and Neanderthals were significantly different, they are different species within the same genus. The differences are large enough that the natural advantages of humans over Neanderthals were extremely significant for competition between the races.

3.) Human races are not significantly different. In fact we are genetically nearly identical.

There are no subspecies of human, anybody who classifies the different races as subspecies is both ignorant and racist. Why? Because modern humans already are a subspecies. We are Homo Sapiens Sapiens. There is another Homo Sapien, Homo Sapiens Idaltu, which is now extinct.

4) Your entire argument is entirely irrelevant as to whether evolution is correct. You're essentially arguing that "evolution causes bad things, so therefore evolution is false", which is a pretty damned clear non-sequitur.

Yes.

I don't see why you have a hard time with this either since nothing makes these things mutually exclusive.

If I'm in a large group of people and I say "It's cold outside get your coats before we go." would you be surprised that those wearing their coats (ie those already suited to the environment) do nothing while those without coats (ie those unsuited to the environment) either get a coat (change) or decide if they have no coat go without (remain unchanged at a disadvantage to their health).

Its not that hard to see that when the environment changes some life will already be well suited to deal with it while others will either evolve or attempt to persist at a disadvantage.  Those who can't adapt are left to persist at a disadvantage and may perish or they may be able to eek out an existance until the environment changes (and it might get worse for them then and finish sending them extinct).

It's funny that this debate is always so hopeless. Brainwashed people can't even acknowledge the problem.

Bacteria aren't "niche". It's too easy to dismiss the problem like that!

You can try this:
Picture in your head, think of bacteria as the common "representatives" of life on earth for a second, instead of a well adapted "niche".
It's perfectly fine to do so since them being:

"primitive" (if I may say so) in their basic construction,
being sensitive and very exposed to factors that cause mutations, such as radiation
being extremely numerous,
having an extremely fast growth time
having an extremely short replication/generation time (as a driving mechanic to pass on new traits in a population for example)
being present in all possible environments, living conditions and pressures on earth,
and they even have other organisms to feed on
being 1 billion years old on earth.

Why is this line of life on earth "stuck" (bacteria, but I could have chosen yeast cells for example - just any numerous branch of life that is stuck) ?

Don't come dragging with a stupid answer like "oh, but bacteria are successful, who are you to dismiss them as primitive?" because it shows u havent understood the essence of the problem (because Im not saying that bacteria arent successful, they surely have their place - indeed they do! - but thinking of them as "representatives of life", they should have kept branching off to other forms of organisms all the time <---- these branching events doesnt hinder the rest of the bacteria to remain one cellular, numerous and successful, understand this!!!)

And dont come saying "but oh, it happened. There's mitochondria in eukaryotic cells." Because that again shows u dont understand. (isnt it a lil strange that this event "happened" to happen just only once then, 500 million years ago?)

Shortly after i started reading this post i agreed with you.

I'm listed as a question mark. :(

I believe in evolution, but am not sure if man evolved like other animals.

Shall I start naming the genocides caused by the bible?

no, no I wont, because I know how to debate.

To the bolded points in order:

First, this isn't even an argument.  You're just objecting because you don't like the answer.  Everything occupies a niche.

Second, you are right that there are a ton of species that are evolutionarily "stuck".  This is because evolution doesn't happen at a constant rate, in fact it typically happens in bursts as the environment changes.  When the environment does change such that an organism needs to change or die the adaptions have their fun for a while before stabilizing again (assuming it doesn't die out as a species before it adapts). As I'm sure you're aware adaptations without those outside environmental factors driving it are extremely unlikely due to a lack of selective pressure to ensure propagation. So when you say that "[bacteria is] present in all possible environments, living conditions and pressures on earth" you are actually pointing out that there are very few such environmental factors that could cause the needed selective pressure to cause successful (ie persisting) bacterial adaption.

The point about radiation and rapid generations does have validity but while it covers the issue of high variation it doesn't address the requirement of natural selection to pick the traits that will survive. A ton of variation during a stable period of selection will require better advantages to overcome the competition of the existing set of traits which are flourishing.  In short there is no guarantee that even positive traits will stick around, particularly during times when the organism is stable and flourishing.  What we know of bacteria specifically tells us they very rarely encounter any great pressure to adapt and so it is not surprising but rather expected that they should be relatively stable, particularly when the environment is stable and has been getting more stable as the earth ages. 

It's also worth noting that high variation often counteracts itself as it changes a gene and then later changes it back.  This is a fundamental principle of polling and statistics that truly random variation cancels out.  This is one more example of why selection is key to adaption.

Third, even with that point made we can't possibly presume to know if they have, in fact, failed to produce other offshoots, because those branches may have simply failed.  There is actually good reason to suspect they would fail in fact.  Specifically, I think you are underestimating the negative pressures imposed by competition. Or to get to the point, the first such evolution of an adaption that will exploit a new niche has a MASSIVE advantage that you are ignoring...the advantage of being the first!  Once the first comes and exploits the niche (or niches) in its unexploited state the subsequent occurrences of any such adaption that would exploit that niche are left to attempt to follow in the footprints of a world already embroiled in competition for those resources (unlike the first occurrence which had free reign).  This is at the heart of why environmental factors are the catalyst for in-place adaptions(ie adaptions that don't cause niche changes) ..because adaptions without those factors are often overruled by the flourishing niche essentially "sticking to what works", or in other words the advantageous trait was not preferred enough to override the existing.

So why might it happen only once?  Well if it truly has only happened once then the advantage of being first is probably a big part of the reason why.

But if it has happened multiple times we need to look at cases where multiple organisms compete for a single niche. And when we do we will see that they developed either during a resource abundant period (rare) or from different areas not directly in competition and later came to be in competition as the environment changed (more likely).  Or on the multicellular level they are often species that have migrated into new areas and now fight for the niche that has been held by some native species before their arrival.  What is perhaps most interesting is that species with high reproductive forces like bacteria push themselves to the edge of resource limits and impose fierce competition within the niche, this means that any advantaged competitor would likely dominate the niche over time rather than share it.  This to us could easily appear as "the only time it has occurred" but actually be the 9,000th or the 22nd or in fact the 1st.

But even if it is the 22nd or 9,000th occurence it would still share a massive similarity with every species that was actually an offshoot from the 1st because it itself is an offshoot from the 1st.  The difference to us between the 22nd and the first would be negligible.

PS - You shouldn't be so frustrated about the disagreement that you need to allege brainwashing.  Your default position and mine are different so it is understandable that we both want very compelling evidence to change that position.  This doesn't require brainwashing but it might entail an amount of antiprocess which is a normal factor in any debate.

Netherlands - Theory of Evolution

I haven't been brainwashed. In school I was taught about evolution. Why? Because it's what happened. That doesn't count as brainwashing.