Without going into points you and kaister have already
discussed.
Observation is the one of the key component to all scientific
theories. This is especially true in pathological sciences. Key
discoveries around the world owes itself to that; if alexander
fleming simply attributed the bacteria's death to god's smiting
we'd still be stuck with ritual healings.
It is thus untrue to say that it is a half answered question. To
begin with, the evolution theory is a THEORY built on OBSERVATION.
It is NOT an answer. Creationism is a passage of text found in the
bible, no more, no less.
Scientific theories are held to be correct in the scientific
community until disproved. Since you so clearly expressed that your
esteemed slef is incapable of disproving it, the other route you
have chosen in attempting to destroy its credibility is by means of
sulking.
Before you sulk more, allow me to assure you that others have
already countered the points i cited earlier point by point with
far more rational approaches as opposed to "that's not evolution!"
Ben1xy made a good point about theistic evolution; perhaps you
should get yourself acquinted with that.
Theories have been proven to be both right and wrong. But I assure
you that the observations are very real. The keywords you have
cited "adaptation" "survival of fittest" "mutation" are all central
to the idea of evolution; i don't why you'd twist it around to say
that it's not evolution; no matter if you know and agree that these
happens, then despite what you may think, you're really standing on
the side of evolutionists.
Perhaps what you really need to do is to read "the origin of
species" to actually figure out what the theory is, and what it is
all about. The way you're arguing indicates that you have at best
read off wikipedia. ie: it's not the theory that's incomplete but
rather, your understanding. 
Funnily, the retrospective evidence you cite to be the most
tangible is a terrible nightmare for creationists. If held to be
correct without other parts of evolution, either god looks like an
ape (created in his own image) or god only created part of the
world. (since everything before b.c4000 predates creation)
Again since we're so much on observations, the number 1 observation
is that Kaister provides you with ANSWERS, and all you're providing
him are with QUESTIONS, vague ones, nonetheless. which btw, he's
already answered. YOu're just too blind to see that.
Next time, if you lose an argument, bow out nicely, and nobody will
say anything. Slowly changing your stance, and sulking until others
agree with you is just plain childish. I know, because i observed
my little nephew doing that all the time.
