Evolution is a scientific theory not a fallacy

"Note the well known bacterial experiments of Lenski, which while only taking place over 20 years, readily demonstrate and support the theory of evolution as defined in the above." This is a sign of tolerance not evolution. The African American people have darker skin to grow accustomed to their environment. These bacterium grew accustomed to citrus, not changing species. It is still the same bacterium, it can just stand something it couldn't before. Jerry Coine in the article says, "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen." Creationists never have said that bacterium can't gain tolerance. Creationists say the bacterium cannot turn into horses or fish. That is a huge difference. "Specific to this debate the claim "we have never seen any animal inside a species become an animal outside that species" is false. In fact it is so well known to be false and the evidence so strong against it that even Hovind has stopped using this as an argument." Show me one time when an animal inside a kind became an animal outside that kind. Hovind is not a final authority on this. Just because he stopped using it does not make it false. Maybe it is just such a blatent fact that he felt it not even worth mentioning. "The literature contains many instances where a speciation event has been inferred. The number and quality of these cases may be evidence enough to convince most workers that speciation does occur." http://www.talkorigins.org... This is the website that pro cited as "The most well documented list of speciation is given on talk.origins [3]. This collection and commentary on speciation events notes hundreds of peer reviewed articles which report speciation again and again for the last 100 years." Yet this website says the "LITERATURE contains many instances where a speciation event has been INFERRED." I'm sorry, but I thought that science was supposed to be about observed facts, not inferrences. Also, through out the entire website I noticed the following phrases used profusely: Observed Instances of Speciation(this is the title these are under) Plants Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. (sterile, cannot have offspring. This is where we came from?) Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile. (if it is artificial, how did evolution naturally do it?) When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. (less vigorous sounds like a loss of traits, not a gain.) Animals The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes.(so a change in courtship is a sign of progress? Why haven't we mastered it yet?) They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.(Male and female separation is not a way to mate and evolve.) All of these show problems that came up. Now sure some stuff did go right, but it never resulted in a change of species. About the best thing that came about was a better mating life (which humans do just by being flirts). This is not anything to show evolution where a fruit fly changes into a whale or even into a bee. It was still just a fruit fly afterwards. "In order to contest this, it would need to be defined as to the nature of a kind in a way of course which can be demonstrated and falsified as if one animal is the same kind as another." This is something that any kid could tell. Kinds are able to produce offspring together. Dogs and wolves can produce offspring. Dogs and fish cannot. Is it really that hard to figure out?