Actually, you seem to be misrepresenting mine.
It is some of the evolutionists here that are insisting that evolution has too been witnessed.
No one is saying that a cat has turned into a dog or should. No one but you, anyway.
I'm just correcting them.
In what way?
However, the instant you agree that macro-evolution cannot be replicated in the lab any more than Alexander's victories over the Persians, you lose the right to claim that Darwinian evolution is as much a "fact" as gravity and to mock those who disagree with your interpretations of the data as flat-earthers.
Evolution of various fast-reproducing life forms is routinely demonstrated in vitro. The ordinary understanding is that when you know where little differences in a little time come from, you know whence big differences over longer time arise. The extraordinary claim is that some other mechanism aside from the accumulation of small changes is needed to account for large changes.
The burden of proof would thus seem to be on the ignorant luddites who claim that something else may be going on.
"The ordinary understanding is that when you know where little differences in a little time come from, you know whence big differences over longer time arise."
Only if the changes are of the same kind. There is a difference between slight changes within a gene pool and dramatic changes like the number of chromosomes in a species, completely new features, and other extremely complex behavior (Darwin's God has some really interesting examples).
The theory of evolution says that shifts within a gene pool can account for the complete creation of the gene pool itself, a claim which I find highly dubious. Recombining playing cards will give me new hands, but not altogether new cards.