Well, I'm afraid camping with my son takes precendence over countering nonsense on FR. As a matter of fact, last week in Montana we saw Columbian and Uinta ground squirrels, another pair of closely related species which probably drifted apart after the last glaciation.
You creationists have been a sad disappointment. You try to debate biology, but you don't have any first hand knowledge of biology. If, say, one of you was able to discuss the relationships of American passerines from a structural or plumage or behavioral standpoint, we would at least be able to discuss cold, hard indisputable facts, rather than tracts and straw men. But none of you seem to know even the rudiments of descriptive biology. Lands sakes man: you don't need to accept Darwin to have a working knowledge of American zoology; Audubon managed .
I've answered your questions, and in your heart you know that. The problem is, I've answered in terms of real, living facts about real living animals; you can't find 'rebuttals' in your anti-evolution tracts, and you don't have the knowledge or experience to argue from first principles.
One thing that Darwin and Wallace shared was an encyclopedic knowledge of nature. To be able to form an intelligent perspective on the natural world as a whole, you have to learn about the natural world as a whole. It takes a lot of time, and a lot of effort. And I don't mean college courses, I mean getting out and watching and studying birds and animals and plants and fungi and whatever. I've always found it a pleasure, so I don't claim credit for any particular virtue in doing so, but I don't have any respect for opinions that are not similarly educated. Same reason I despise most environmentalists; for all their supposed concern about nature, I doubt 90% of them could name 20 living native land animals. If they loved it as they say, they'd know more about it.