So the variation that has produced chihuahuas and great danes is a loss, not a gain? How so?
It's a Not a loss for the numbers of variation, it would be a fulfillment of the available genetic pool of diversity. The animal wouldn't exist if the genetics did not allow for it.
But when the genetics are expressed to a degree that leaves the animal incapable of interbreeding with some other breeds, it's a loss on the dna front for that breed. You're problem is that it is still a dog. If it then grew wings or something like that, you would have a speciation event when an obvious dog became an obvious non-dog.
The point I've made repeatedly is what's on display here.
You can't show something turning into something else; so, in absence of that, you want to pass off micro-evolution as macro-evolution. The reason there are different terms is that they are different things. Micro works within a species (generically Corn), Macro works to leap the species bounds into another species.
Corn becoming variant corn is micro - variation of given population. It is not macro - becoming something more or different than corn. You guys aren't stupid nor are we. And we are not missing the intellectual dishonesty you present to try and overcome your own bunk. Corn is Corn is Corn. When it becomes something other than corn, you got your macro. Till then, you're shovelling smoke hoping someone will buy it.