The recent experiments in Russia where they have been working with the fox is offered as evidence of an observable macroevolution into dogs which takes place so quickly that within a few generations the transformation would conceivably eliminate the oossibility of finding evidence of transitional forms between the two now different species.
This is what they speculate happened with the wolf into dogs evolution 20,000 years ago.
The point being that it may be impossible to find the intermediate steps because the whole new species was seeded by only a few generations of the very very small initial population undergoing the transformation
What we find a "million" years later is just this dog skeleton and the wolf skeleton, but none of the few dozens of intermediates.
No, what you are doing is trying to obfuscate the whole issue because you have chosen not to believe in evolution no matter what the evidence is. I gave you classic examples of microevolution and macroevolution, but you seem to require that they be directly "observed" and now you want to argue about the definition of "observed."
Face it, evolution happened.
The whole apes-to-humans scenario that paleontologists have described actually happened.
Ancient tribal myths that say otherwise are inaccurate.
You are right.
The Bible people have dug a deep pit by opposing evolution so adamantly and organizing against it, as evidenced by laws concerning public education.
But I believe the younger people will come to accept science as supportive of their faith in what Genesis says as they discuss this very matter with what are the Theistic Evolution Bible believers.
This different take on Genesis makes scientific sense of what we read in the Bible. It postulates that the early audiences for Genesis would have necessarily ben spoon feed "baby food" about the ctual startling reality of what science is now telling us. That man has existed for 7 milluon years, or the Cosmnos is 13.5 billion years old is still hard for some people to grasp.
Hints like stating that Adam live 950 years suggests to us now that "Adam" was a kind of humanoid, a species, and not an individual.
Isaac Asimov, (author of "The Bible"), made the deduction that these inordinately long life spans that are mentioned in Genesis make sense as eponyms, or totem references to some original tribal or community head, which was used thereafter in referring to those peoples.
The Bible actually is explicit in supporting what I write here, but the church has just not focused on this:
Gen 5:2 says god called them, the man and his wife, the "Adamites,"... i.e.; a species:
Gen 5:2 Male and female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and called THEIR name Adam, (a species), in the day when THEY were created.
By "observed", do you mean "seen by the human eye" ?
That will never work. Remember that Socrates said "believe only half of what you see, and nothing you hear."
What is necessary is that the younger children in religious families come in contact with information that does not require them to contradict their elders, but can influence them to embrace Science as a support for their faith in the bible as Truth:
This is directly supported by the latest Book published on the subject and authored by a group of esteemed paleontologists:
The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)
It's also not the "latest" insight on human evolution, considering it's 6 or 7 years old.
I clearly stated that the list of 22 now extinct humans was a reference to the latest published book.
And the criticism that the last three correlations with our three racial stocks has analogy with the "sons" of Noah does not imply one was the source of the other, but the three separate speciations occurred from the same stock refered to as Naoh:
God called them àøí as the author wrote. The definition of àøí is man or mankind.
The Masoretes added vowel pointings to Biblical Hebrew in 600 AD and àøí with the vowel pointings is transliterated adam. But that does not change the meaning of àøí it still means man (singular) or mankind (plural).
So instead of translating àøí the translators chose to transliterate àøí along with the Masoretes vowel points adam instead of translating it mankind or humans as we would use.
Now you want to change the King James Bible so that the science dows not fit what every Christian reads in Sunday School???
Do you agree that there was no Adam at all then, and we need go back and change every reference to an Adam to read merely, Man?
Or are you saying just when I draw your attention to these details you do not like to read about?
What I am saying is that a strict reading of Genesis can support that the 22 now extinct humans referred to by science may well agree with the 22 references to our earliest roots as enumerated in Genesis genealogy.
In fact, until this theological hypothesis has been presented here,that list of begats was rather beneath the valuable space used by God to talk to us about our creation and roots. It was a mere list of names with about the same message, a special son was born among many others not so special thereafter.
But this Theological hypotheis answers the perplexing questions of who Cain could have married and where did the women come from for Seth and so on. Seeing these names as EPONYMS or symbolic representation for "THEM," a species, makes rational sense in SUPPORT of the Bible.
We are told also, that other types of "men" co-existed before the flood, and that we were even products of their sexual intercourse and hybridizations:
Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus, two species, Methuselahian and Methusaelian), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (the Methusaelian Homo erectus), came in unto the daughters of men, (Lamechian Homo antecessors, and even Neanderthal), and they bare (Neanderthal) children to them, the same became mighty men, (hybrids preceding the advent of Archaic Homo Sapiens, Cro-Magnon man), which were of old, men of renown.
I'll also note that the association of Ham with the the Negroid is a concept that most people find abhorent. I'd be inclined to use stronger negative terms than boo-boo, for this crap.
True. It is now Politically Incorrect to express the science which tells us this is true, and the idea of distinct racial lines in taboo today.
Well we all know that the term Race is socially charged and the government is prone to differ with the science of the matter, and such scientists as Dwakins, who supports the work of Geneticist Edwards who insists that the seven racial differences that Lawton first proposed are actually correct:
NOTE: Edwards saw the argument against such identities as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality. 
But the implication of the three Racial Stocks going back 40,000 years has evident to support it, and agree that from that Stock, today, a diversity of seven geneticlly different racial sources has emerged or evolved:
Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30% , the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously
Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are, highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."
Hi kofh2u, I was simply pointing out that you was putting words in God's mouth as He did not say what you said that He said.
Now if you would like to discuss your post in great detail please start a thread in the Biblical division and I will join you.
This is a science thread and such discussion would be off topic.
My email address is available in my profile so when you have started the thread notify me.
1) How do you quote the previous poster?
2) I am not discussing religion, but comparing what science says to what anyone can read in the King James Bible, Gen 5:2.
3) If God said what I read then your accusation is warranted, as opposed to your argument that I dismiss the clear statement in the Bible. It seems to me that you are changing what Gen 5:2 says and arguing that you have support to so do.
Do you really believe that you can trace racial differences to one of Noah's sons or alternatively to separate lines traceable to a single set of siblings? This isn't an issue of what the government says, or of political correctness or a denial of science. This is you spouting 18th century nonsense used to justify enslaving African people.
I posted below that Dwakins agrees with this whole trend of thought, including the attempt to repress the Science that specifies racialdifferences as a Social convention that arose because of racism duringthe last century.
Here is what Dwakins said again:
"Well we all know that the term Race is socially charged and the government is prone to differ with the science of the matter, and such scientists as Dwakins, who supports the work of Geneticist Edwards who insists that the seven racial differences that Lawton first proposed are actually correct."
Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument ... as being: "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." What Edwards had claimed was this: Edwards saw the argument against such identities as being based mostly in apolitical stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality. But he held firmly to the scientific concept that modern men can be sorted out and scientifically classified into seven groups that essentially are what is meant by "race." Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30%, the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously.
The chart above is another scientist idea of how the three racial stocks, (Ham, Japheth, and Shem), differentiated into other racial differences we see today.