Even very long term studies of bacterial population do not see new species arise, or any particular drift to do so. Given that bacterial generation occur a half million times faster than humans, (20 minutes vs 20 years) we have certainly been studying bacteria long enough to have seen them evolve into a new species. How much DNA change supposedly happened to the human line in 100,000 generations?
Pointing to two different fossils and claiming evolution is not proving it.
Seriously? You obviously don't know much about microbiology, either. One of the biggest public health concerns we face is the fact that microorganisms evolve so quickly that we can never be sure that a new species won't pop up tomorrow and cause widespread disease and death. Have you heard of the Schmallenberg Virus? Brand new species, just evolved (from existing species, of course), and has been causing a lot of fetal and newborn livestock deaths since last summer. It hasn't jumped to humans, and we certainly hope it doesn't.
FYI, there has been enough DNA change in the last 100,000 generations--about 2,000,000 years--for Homo habilis to morph into H. erectus, then into H. heidelbergensis, then into archaic H. sapiens, then into modern H. sapiens (about 200,000 years ago). A few other human species evolved, also, but we're the only one left. Furthermore, H. sapiens has not remained stagnant; we are not the same as our ancestors of 10,000 years ago, and morphological change has been documented among Americans even in the past hundred years or so (hint: morphological change is highly suggestive of genetic change).
Pointing to two different fossils and claiming evolution is not proving it.
Loudly insisting that evolution doesn't occur, or calling it by different words like "microevolution" or "adaptation" doesn't make evolution--or the mountains of evidence showing it--go away.