MC Banhammer Posted:

Please point out to me where I was trolling.

The part where we have observed speciation events.

Admittedly they hadn’t had enough time to diverge very much (and accordingly still look very similar), but all it takes is for a species to divide into two populations that don’t breed with each other. Add time, generations, and ideally some kind of differential selection, and they’ll become more distinct.

This supports the theory that accords with all the evidence we have from the fossil record of past speciation, and all the evidence we have from molecular biology (we can construct phylogeny based on similar genetics and it matches up with all the other evidence about relationships between species)

It all hangs together so beautifully; the morphology, the genetics, the fossils, the observation of what’s happening in wild populations and petri dishes. You really don’t have any firm ground to seriously argue against it from. So you must, logically, be either woefully uninformed (to the point of wilful ignorance) or you’re aware of all this and your post was flamebait. Idiot or troll, pick one.