No Evidence for Speciation?

[McBell]

actually that is not true. the theory of evolution 'officially' began with Charles darwin

Nope.
Try with Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC).
That was long long before Darwin was on the scene.

Unless of course you are talking about the actual word "evolution".
In which case you still wrong:

evolution
1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from L. evolutionem (nom. evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from evolvere (see evolve). Used in various senses in medicine, mathematics, and general use, including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 by Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word only once, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762), in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not found in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (along with brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists popularized evolution.​

Darwin purposely avoided the word "evolution".

 

[Jared Jammer]

The various breeds of dogs are separated via cosmetic differences, rather than fundamental differences, thus, they don't demonstrate much.

We know heredity can produce various sizes, shapes, and colors of already existing traits, and that these variations can become drastic (St. Bernard vs. Chihuahua). The problem is, this degree of evolution isn't extrapolatable to produce the fundamental differences found throughout the living world. If you extrapolate different sizes, shapes, and colors -- while producing no novel traits -- you end up with nothing more than superficial differences of the exact same creature.

This is exactly what is seen in all the breeds of canines, not just dogs.

By the way, the above is what separates microevolution (cosmetic change) from macroevolution (fundamental change). Yes, they're very real terms, and yes, they're crucial in this debate.

 

[secret2]

The various breeds of dogs are separated via cosmetic differences, rather than fundamental differences, thus, they don't demonstrate much.

We know heredity can produce various sizes, shapes, and colors of already existing traits, and that these variations can become drastic (St. Bernard vs. Chihuahua). The problem is, this degree of evolution isn't extrapolatable to produce the fundamental differences found throughout the living world. If you extrapolate different sizes, shapes, and colors -- while producing no novel traits -- you end up with nothing more than superficial differences of the exact same creature.

This is exactly what is seen in all the breeds of canines, not just dogs.

By the way, the above is what separates microevolution (cosmetic change) from macroevolution (fundamental change). Yes, they're very real terms, and yes, they're crucial in this debate.

Don't you understand that species form a continuum. Since you are so obsessed with micro vs. macroevolution, why don't you tell us what stops the evolutionary process from being too macro? Is any holy spirit monitoring it in secret?