[Condorman]

I do not think evolution will ultimately be the strong force for biodiversity.

... evolution seems to have weakness in explaining major new species which are not able to reproduce with progenitors. Are we to believe that such changes must produce offspring of both sexes at the same moment.

...so no I do not refute evolution I just think that it may not be the primary vehicle for major change.

Again, it appears as though you labor under a number of misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution. You may be correct in that evolution may fall by the wayside, but I find it unlikely. However, should evolution ever be falsified beyond recoverability, I will cheerfully abandon it. Just remember that ID must stand or fall on its own merits.

As for your second point, try Methods of Speciation (PDF) or ring species.

[ConsentofGoverned]

"By the time the salamanders reached the southernmost part of California, the separation had caused the two groups to evolve enough differences that they had become reproductively isolated. In some areas the two populations coexist, closing the "ring," but do not interbreed. They are as distinct as though they were two separate species. Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii. "

as i posted variation within a species can be explained by
evolution hypothesis.. no argument there

however we are talking about basically similar salamanders here (ring) not interbreeding from what i can deduct due to not changes in morphology of physical characteristics such as sex organs but in habit of mating.

A horse can produce a mule is that evolution?

i can understand those who would propose this ring data shows evolution - it well may- but you do not have a
mule at the far end of the ring you still have a salamander with unique breeding habits.

what am i missing??