To Archangel
First up: Want to say that while you are a harsh critic, you are also very good. Keep up the good work.
I think there might be a bit of confusion when you use the word "species". New "species" do occur, but as RAZD writes
Over many generations of such change you will see more accumulated differences, especially where two daughter populations become reproductively isolated, as with the Pelycodus example above, and yet even here it is not necessary to form a new taxon in the process.
So they might be classified as a new species or they may not. However as you correctly pointed out this still doesn't equate to the information increasing evolution where one type or kind (hopefully a better definition) of animal gives rise to a completly different type/kind of animal.
There are many examples of a
RAZD writes:
change in hereditary traits in a population from generation to generation
However this again does nothing for goo-to-you-via-the-zoo type evolution.
btw, have you read
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use - creation.com?
Again, welcome, and awesome to have you here.