Here's what you keep missing -- we don't have "a story" that we need to "get straight". We're not spinning any "story". It's the *creationists* who have a story they have trouble agreeing upon or reconciling with reality.
Science, on the other hand, just determines what the evidence indicates -- what an examination of the real world tells us about what really happened.
I say that dog breeds developed rapidly because indeed they did. We say that the Earth is on the order of four billion years old because indeed it is, as indicated by overwhelming amounts of evidence. It's not about trying to "beg credulity" or what "bothers" us or not. It's about finding the truth, by examining the real-world evidence of what actually occurred, and testing potential explanations against that reality.
*Creationists* are the ones who keep scrambling to justify or reconcile a pre-existing "story" they'd like to maintain in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Science on the other hand is the province of those who prefer to find the "story" that reality itself tells us actually happened, whether or not it matches our preconceptions, whether or not it matches any "story" we might have had in mind to start with, whether or not it "begs credulity" (and many scientific discoveries do, like quantum physics -- *very* strange stuff), or whether or not it "bothers" someone who would have prefered to cling to ancient myths.
Science is about finding the truth, *wherever* it leads, without regard to personal wishes or cherished notions.
Get that through your skull for a change and the majority of your bizarre misconceptions about science, about us, and about your fears of having your beliefs challenged will vanish. ...or is that what really bothers you after all?
You are spinning a story. One of you says it takes so long for breeds to spread that it's impossible to happen since the flood of Noah. Prior to that, one of you noted that it happened so recently and quickly in the case of dogs that people are amazed. Whatever is required to say to defend the current argument is the methodology. Busted in other words. So, yes, you do need to get your story straight.
And Creationists don't have to scramble over any "mounting" evidence. The evidence more often than not fits the Biblical model. I like to look to Egyptology a lot for examples of this and David Rohl is a good person to highlight in that regard. Rohl called the timelines and dating methodologies into Question using Egyptian evidences. In the doing, he exposes the faulty nature of traditional dating methodologies. And that, largely is already in question by those of us who don't accept assumptions associated with the methodologies as "reasonable". Reasonableness is determined by having a basis in reality for knowing whether something makes sense or not. If you've never seen an indy car do 400 miles per hour, it would not be reasonable to assume that it could do so. If you've seen one pushed to the redline to do 220, then it becomes unreasonable to assume they can go much faster because you know the care is redlining at 220 - which means the engine is near blowing. In other words, it takes the known to determine reasonableness. How then can one claim it reasonable to assume that 14C was remaining constant in the atmosphere when it isn't currently. How can one "reasonably assume that half-lives remain constant over time if you have no basis in knowledge as to whether such an assumption is reasonable or not. Assumptions like these are what technical dating methodologies largely rest upon. And in the end, they are gauged to something far less reliable - the geologic column. And there you find more assumptions which give you multiple assumptions upon which the technology now rests - none of which can be said to be reasonalble because you can't say how the layers of sediment were all deposited. You can guess; but, you can't say. You have to assume that too. Assume, assume, assume. And you've no basis in the long run to say any of the assumptions are truly reasonable. It isn't evidence that is mounting, it's assumption and theory based upon assumption that is mounting.