Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?

There is a fundamental difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Domestic dogs have been selectiively bred for thousands of years. Despite rather marked phenotypic differences between breeds (microevolution), there are definite limits that cannot be breeched. Each breed remains 100% canine. No amount of selective breeding can change a dog into something else. There have been more generations of fruitflies bred in laboratories than the supposed 2 million year evolution of man. Yet, no one has been able to produce a fundamentally different type by artificial breeding. I might point out that selective breeding offers far greater selective pressure than natural selection, yet there does not exist a single experiment in the scientific literature that documents the possibility of macroevolution, let alone any empiric evidence that it acutally occurred. Thus, the entire theory of evolution remains scientifically baseless. The notion that the existence of micro-evolution over short periods of time provides evidence of macroevolution over long periods of time is a result of completely falacious reasoning. Thus, the entire theory of evolutin remains scientifically baseless. The rhetoric offered smacks of nothing more than philosophical argument.

I'm stating that there IS a fundamental difference between macro- and microevolution... that is it not a continuum. My example of selective breeding of dogs illustrates that point. The mechanisms are completely different. Dogs can exhibit marked differences in phenotype because of the gene pool. Although phonotypes vary significantly, all these changes are minor. However, the mechanism of change between, say, a dog and an otter require changing to a different gene pool, and the ToE offers no evidence that this is biologically possible. You can selectively breed for thousands of generations, but you are still no closer to breeching the obvious barriers that seperate fundamentally different kinds.

You're making statements without providing evidence. I would like to see evidence that it's possible to breed an otter (or any other non-canine type) from a dog... I've been looking for it for over thirty years. All I've heard to this point is largely unsupported theory.

Chiroptera:
Your hypothesis sounds reasonable, but I'm looking for evidence that it's actually possible. Simply stating that organisms have common characterists does not prove descent from a common ancestor... albeit I can understand why one would wonder. It equally fits a model of intellligent design.
The problem is, there is no experimental evidence that macroevolutionary change is possible. The grand changes proported to have occurred over eons of time are, as far as we observe, biologically impossible. You cannot breed anything other than a dog from a dog, regardless of the number of generations produced and the extent of selection of mutations. You cannot do this even if you have artificial control of the selection. Yes, otters and dogs show similarities, but apparent the similarities are insufficient to allow us to breed dogs to become otters or anthing even close to otters. Every dog ever bred is 100% canine. There is no gradual transition to a different kind. Evolutionists claim that all of these changes occurred randomly, yet it cannot be reproduced in the laboratory even when mutations are artificially and purposefullfy induced. Thus, the burden of proof remains with the proponents of evolution. You can't simply fall back on the age old argument that homologous resemblance indicates common ancestry.
Another problem... one must consider mathematical probability concepts. Nothing in nature, to my knowledge, defies basic laws of probability.

PaulK:
You miss my point... Dogs in all their varieties are still dogs. We are not any closer now to something other than a dog than we were 5,000 years ago. Phenotypic differences can actually be produced rather quickly... but there are obvious barriers that cannot be broken.

The new species of bacteria forming are examples of microevolutionary change that we all know exists in nature. No one is disputing that.
What I want to see is direct evidence of macroevolution... species evolving in complexity, evolution from the aquatic to the terrestrial egg, evolution of echolocation, powered flight, etc, etc. You cannot explain evolution of complex activities such as flight as accumulations of microevolutionary changes.
I want to see someone try to breed a bat from a rodent. Do all the selective breeding you wish, and induce as many mutations as you want. I want to see one shred of evidence that you can bring the species one iota of a degree closer to a bat than it is now. The evolutinist rebuttal is simply, I don't have enough time. So, given enough time, you could do it. Where's the evidence?

Everyone knows that barriers exist. Their existence is evidenced by the fact that all known species of dogs are not any less canine than any other species. It is up to a proponent of ToE to prove that these barriers CAN be broken... The biology that we all observe tells us that they can't.

Black Wolf:
Interesting you would suggest such a probability, because an event with a probability of .0000000000000000002 would NEVER happen in the supposed 4.5 billion year age of the earth.

The arguments I've been hearing are far too simplistic. The very mechanisms of microevolution are different from macroevolution. In the former, phenotypic differences are achieved by shuffling genes around in the existing gene pool. For macroevolution to occur, beneficial mutations are required. While I concede that critical protein substitutions are possible. I've yet to be convinced that any of this is within the realm of reasonable probability. If macroevolutionary change has been so ubiquitous in the past, then why can no one demonstrate it in a laboratory?
You can refute that barriers exist, but my challenge stands. Simple protein substitutions in DNA may look easy... fine... let's see someone do it. To simply examine the blueprint of a genetic code after the fact and conclude that it could have happened through random events is misleading. First of all, the difference between an otter and a dog is not only one protein substituion. It would require many simultaneous beneficial substitutions. Try to fathom the probability. Better yet, let's how close someone can get to making an otter from a dog by artificially inducing random mutations.
The argument that a creator would not have created living things as they are reflects only philosophical or religious bias and is a baseless argument in a scientific forum.

To presume macroevolution based on microevolutionary changes is very sloppy science and is one of the greatest fallacies of evolutionary thinking. The fact is, there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support macroevolutionary claims, only suppositions based on assumptions. Furthermore, macroevolution is, as far as is known, biologically impossible. No amount of selective breeding can change a bacterium into an elephant, and yet that is precisely what evolutionists claim. I would offer a suggestion. If evolution occurred in the past, construct a hypothetical pathway as to how a bacterium can be bred into an elephant. Although you have several hundred million years, you should be able to do this in significantly less time than through natural selection. You may think my challenge is absurd, but it is no less laughable than what evolutionists believe actually happened. Everyone knows that there are limits to change that cannot be crossed.