Ummm... I own a Great Pyrenees and have probably done a little more research on the topic than you have. The primary reason to have Pyrs altered as working dogs is that, during predatory mating season, there will be a few weeks during which the dog is more interested in mating with predators than protecting the flock. That's according to folks who actually use the dogs as flock guardians. Somehow, I trust their opinion on the topic more than yours.
As for micro=macro, you can insist they're "the same", but your wishful thinking doesn't make it so. We can demonstrate micro-evolution quite easily, where potential characteristics disappear from a species in a given geographic region due to environmental factors (like coloration on moths becoming predominantly or exclusively one color, due to other colors standing out against places where the moths might perch, like tree trunks, for example, thereby making them easy prey), but that's not the formation of a new species, merely the "natural selection" of specific genetic traits already apart of the species for a given area.
Darwin's natural selection is perfectly true for micro-evolution. To an extent, Darwin was right -- differing breeds of species do tend to be treated as different species under our taxonomic system when environmental situations favor various traits over others. But that doesn't genuinely make the two differing populations geninely different species. We simply have a proclivity to name any new morphological variation a new species.
Micro-evolution is what Darwin observed, and he inferred macro-evolution from it. It's far from proven however. Not even close, really.
And for the record, I'm not saying that macro-evolution doesn't happen. I'm simply showing that it's extremely far from having been proven.
Also, you're back to Joseph Smith and caffeine. Look at what you said:
The Theory of Evolution requires a method of inheritance, a means to pass on a favourable mutation from one generation to the next, without it there is no evolution.
Tatammmm! DNA. The method of inheritance as predicted by Darwin.
You are assuming that DNA mutation is the vehicle by which the hypothesized evolution occurs. When you can actually prove that DNA does this, come back and state your proof. Until then, you're simply clinging to your fascination with all things scientific and seeing what you want. Think yourself a man of science? Well, then, PROVE IT. DNA is how we transmit our existing characteristics (dominant genes, or recessive genes that aren't dominated) or the potential existing characteristics (recessive genes that are dominated) into our offspring. Micro-evolution is the natural selection of certain existing characteristics over others due to environmental factors. Macro-evolution is the alteration of existing or potential characteristics into other characteristics. Can you grasp how the two are different? DNA clearly supports micro-evolution. DNA has not once been shown to naturally support macro-evolution (not to be confused with what we can accomplish in a laboratory).
Alert Webmaster & Moderators|