This blog post is mainly a response to a discussion going on here at War of the Waves.
The problem with saying "Darwinism" is at fault, or at least "the scientific rationale for Communism-an ideology" is it's not only a mis-directed blame-ology, it is a false argument at it's core. It would be much like trying to say it's the bible's fault that people have used scripture as the basis for some of the bloodiest and deadliest wars in all of recorded history. Just because Marx was able to twist Darwin's writings on natural selection as a way of building a government system with which to subjugate and control most of a continent isn't Darwin's fault, and it certainly isn't evolutions fault--it's Marx's fault! And you, Richard Ramsey, are making the same misplaced logic that Marx was at fault for using! You just have a different goal for misreading evolutionary theory! (not to say that the misreading is entirely "on purpose," but it is nonetheless twisted and misread on your part...)
And while it may be nice, even a worthy goal, to read up and study Communism's faults, foibles, and history upon earth as it relates to human history and such, it is still a very bad casual connection to say Darwin and evolutionary theory are somehow to blame for Communism's brutal and bloody reign. The bible, and the wars fought on it's behalf (or, if you will, the beliefs held by those who have read and misread it for eons) have caused just as much misery, pain, torture as Marx--more, if truth be entirely told. And while it is easy to see how Marx could misread and use evolutionary theory to build a governmental system meant for subjugating a people, the fault lies in that, instead of seeing how Marx misread the writings of Darwin, but that you think Marx read them correctly and thus it must be Darwin's fault (or at the very least evolution's fault!) means that you think Marx's misreading and misapplication must have been the only true and accurate way of reading Darwin's material in the first place!
I am hoping you see the distinction here, but if you think I'm not being entirely clear here on the distinction, let me know and I can try to figure out another way to phrase or illustrate my point...
Now, onto your second point, "how can one go about observing one species changing into another?"
First, I suggest you read up on how micro- and macroevoltion are the exact same thing. (You can see my 29 posts about the topic of evolution and it's impact on all our lives, or if you do a simple Google search on macroevolution and find many reputable, scientific articles, sources, and facts about macroevolution and its many proofs). Of course, none of this will mean a pile of dingo's kidneys if you refuse to look at any of it with any type of critical thinking (so many refuse to engage in critical thinking when it comes to these topics of "creationism V evolution") but I like to think most people keep an open mind when considering any point of view or reading any new material... :)