[quote]First of all this sounds like the age old "the eyeball is too complicated to have been produced by accident" fallacy.[/quote]...which the eyeball is.[quote]Secondly, this particular paragraph merely highlights natural human ignorance and limitations: it has never been produced in a lab because the process takes too long and accelerating evolution is the stuff of science fiction.[/quote]Hmm...I guess that's why we decided to use organisms that have short lifespans compared to ours such as insects.[quote][It] can't be observed by nature because as a species we have only been scientifically observant for the past few hundred years.[/quote]Did you not read the experimental section in the OP?[quote]Not enough time has passed for us to be able to see any of these things occur.[/quote]Obviously false statement is apparently and obviously false.[quote]To claim that this somehow invalidates evolution is also a fallacy...[/quote]who said that most Christians disprove of evolution. It isn't that we disprove of it; it's only that we accept the plausible evidence.[quote]...as it assumes human experience is the full measure of the universe, which is arrogant and foolish.[/quote]Oh, I agree with you whole-heartedly on that statement.[quote]Microevolution is acceptable to you because it takes place on human timescales, but macro isn't because it is beyond your comprehension of time; it takes place on geological time scales.[/quote]The subjects that were tested were insects. Not only did the organisms have obviously short lifespans, but they also adapted to their environment splendidly, but when the environmental factors were removed after generations of "evolution," they reverted. That's the issue.[quote]We can track DNA and see how it has shaped over time by looking at DNA [b]similarities[/b] (such as us having 98% in common with chimps)...[/quote]I don't have to explain why this statement is just wrong.[quote]...we can see in the fossil record a theme of progress over the eons in skeletal structure.[/quote]...which contains not even at least 100 transitional forms for even one species in the span of four and half billion years.[quote]...there are gaps in what we know, but there is evidence there; science doesn't pretend to have all the answers.[/quote]As expected.[quote]Understanding the universe is not limited [to] the empirical senses. Chief among the animal kingdom we have the brains to extrapolate based on data, even limited data, sound conclusions.[/quote]The last one is what Christians are to, well at least I do, depend on.[quote]Limiting our perception to merely the five senses is to limit our capacity to be no more than base animals. Your God, should He be real, gave us the ability to think critically; merely saying "we haven't actually seen it with our senses" is to ignore that great gift.[/quote]Beautifully stated sir. Beautifully stated.