Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

Quite so. Now, why do you suppose that the people who are most intimately familiar with the evidence, i.e. scientists, are so overwhelmingly pro-evolution?Supplementary question. You are obviously completely unfamiliar with the evidence. You are a creationist. Might there be a connection between these two facts?

Hello ... earth to creationist?Hello ... What do you think you're talking about, and is there any evidence for it?How, for example, does one measure the "genetic capacity" of an organism? You seem to think that this refers to a single quantitative measure of something (whereas I think it is a phrase that usually only makes sense in front of the words "for" or "to": e.g.: "I have the genetic capacity to learn Chinese").But you seem to think it is a single quantity an organism has which therefore admits of quantitative comparison between organisms.So, please tell us how you measure it, and when this has been done in the case of dogs and wolves.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, to summarise: you want evidence of evolution that would show up in the fossil record, but will reject all the evidence that does show up in the fossil record.Presumably your hope is that since experiments on evolution have only been ongoing for a few decades, rather than millions of years, and have involved mostly single-celled organisms, which don't show much in the way of morphology, no such example will be forthcoming.In short, you hope you have set us a challenge which we will not presently be able to meet however true the theory of evolution is.An interesting, indeed revealing, manoeuvre. But doomed to failure.I give you, for example, the evolution of Chlorella vulgaris from a single-celled form to an eight-celled form, as a response to predation by Ochromonas vallescia. The benefit is that such forms are too big for O. vallescia to eat (will you admit that not being eaten is a benefit?) and of course such morphological changes would (and do) show up in the fossil record. Splendid. I look forward to our future discussions with interest.

I am moderately curious as to what you can be talking about. They also did not mention that 2 + 2 = 4, or use the word "duh", because they were writing for an audience of scientists. They did not need, therefore, to explain that a heritable change is a mutation, or that a change from single-celled to multicelled under selective pressure is adaptive evolution.Their target audience did not need the bleeding obvious spelling out to them. I have heard of Lamarck's discredited ideas. I have no idea why you mention them.This is clearly a heritable change: It is not "vacuous", (a word that you should blush to use) but there's not much of it, and as you know perfectly well, this is because most evolutionary experiments are done over a short period (compared to the billions of years in the fossil record) using tiny blobby things with little discernable morphology. Therefore you set us a challenge which you hoped we would fail however true the theory of evolution is.You don't dare say: "Show me the evidence", 'cos we've got lots of evidence. Now you're down to: "Show me the results of an experiment that I hope no-one's ever done".But oh look, they did.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yeah, it is common. You, for example, just messed the two up.You are making the common creationist muddle between prediction and interpretation.The theory of evolution predicts that we should see exactly the sort of morphological sequences that we do see. In order to check that we see these morphological sequences, it is not necessary to assume that they are, nor to interpret them as, lines of descent. We just need to check that they are there.In the same way, we can check the prediction of the theory of gravity that planets should travel in ellipses without assuming that this is down to gravity, or interpreting this as a result of gravity. We simply ask: "Do we see what the prediction says we should see?" We can, if we wish, check the correctness of this prediction although we ourselves are firmly personally convinced that the planets are pushed around by angels. We don't have to interpret the motion of the planets as being caused by gravitation in order to check that the theory of gravity makes the correct predictions about their motion.Once we are convinced that the theory of evolution is correct, by observing the invariable success of its predictions, then we can use the theory to interpret the fossils, and start interpreting them as being (something close to) a line of descent. Who are these "many" silly scientists? Can you quote any of them? Yes. That's what we do after we have been convinced by the evidence that the theory is correct. I answered your line/bush confusion in an earlier post. Of course Equus has a line of descent. This is not contradicted by the observation that the family tree of the basal form has branches. These are not competing ideas, they are both true. Can you show me any creationist website, reputable or otherwise, that will tell me where microevolution stops and macroevolution starts, by any genetic or morphological criterion? We can certainly see the evolution of polygenetic traits. See, for example, our recent excitement over the evolution of a form of E. coli that can eat citrate.---Now doubtless RAZD is going to tell us that we're off topic. If there is any particular issue that you'd like to confuse, start a thread and I shall do my best to unconfuse you.

Now, if only you could prove any of that instead of just saying it ... then maybe you'd have a point.Feel free to start a thread on any of these subjects.

Okay, let's see if I've got this right.Stasis: Macroevolution: