Directly Observed Mutation

Probably, but why would we have to?The only inheritable change is that that occurs genetically, at least as far as bacteria go. (I think there's some epigenetic inheritance at work in metazoans but I'm not sure about that.)Hypothetical situation - we observe that a bacillus population declines precipitously in response to a disadvantageous environment (or a new predator), but then rebounds. We know that a change must have happened, or else the original population would have survived. We know the change must be heritable, or else the new members of the population would have had it.The only conclusion is that a mutation occured. There's no other kind of heritable change that can occur in a bacterium.But, yes. It's fairly often, in bacteria at least, that we can sequence the genetics before and after the mutation, and see what locus mutated, and in what way.

That's stupid. I mean, we've never directly oberved matter exchanging carrier particles for gravity, but it would be idiotic for someone to assert that, unless he saw direct observation of gravity and not just it's effects, he'd have to believe that it was invisible angels that pushed him down into his chair and not the same force that does that for the rest of us.And anyway, even if he saw the mutation happen (assuming we had techniques that could peer inside the genetics of a cell without destroying it), whats to say that it isn't still "divine intervention"? How does he know what divine intervention looks like?

Ok, well, we have natural selection, which you admit.We must have mutation, because that's the only heritable difference between individual bacteria. They are, after all, asexual.So we have mutation and natural selection. We have those processes changing the frequency of alleles in the population.So we've proved we have evolution in that population. Case closed. it really is just that simple, unless something other than science compels you to reject any conclusion that supports evolution.

Because there's no such thing as "macro" or "microevolution"; there's just evolution.It's all the same thing - natural selection and random mutation changing allele frequencies.

Recessive genes don't get "activated." They're already activated; they're just not expressed if their counterposing allele is dominant.

Loads. Happens all the time: Observed Instances of SpeciationIt's called "speciation." It happens when you separate a population into two subpopulations that no longer have the opportunity to interbreed. As muations accumulate, the two populations lose any ability to interbreed, so even if you tried to merge them again, they wouldn't be able to breed. Well, yeah, actually, it is. If there's a barrier to variability on that level, how come we've never run into it, or into any mechanism that might cause it?If you assert that there is one, it's up to you to substantiate that claim.

Not so. Evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies. That change can occur via selection, or mutation, or by reproductive isolation (which, like death, takes some number of genes out of the gene pool.)

No, you just did prove it: See? That's all there is to it.

How about the new one, where if you have it, you have the malarial resistance without the anemia?