You have to have a much better example than that, and anyone who claims to have in depth knowledge of biological systems who doesn't know the difference between selective breeding as conducted by humans and natural selection definitely needs to go back to school.
Here is the whole text of Darwin's Origin of Species. It has more than just dog breeding in it. Why argue with me, when you can look at the reasoning at its source?
Knock yourself out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
A large amount of change in our cultivated plants, thus slowly and unconsciously accumulated, explains, as I believe, the well-known fact, that in a vast number of cases we cannot recognise, and therefore do not know, the wild parent-stocks of the plants which have been longest cultivated in our flower and kitchen gardens. If it has taken centuries or thousands of years to improve or modify most of our plants up to their present standard of usefulness to man, we can understand how it is that neither Australia, the Cape of Good Hope, nor any other region inhabited by quite uncivilised man, has afforded us a single plant worth culture. It is not that these countries, so rich in species, do not by a strange chance possess the aboriginal stocks of any useful plants, but that the native plants have not been improved by continued selection up to a standard of perfection comparable with that given to the plants in countries anciently civilised.
Darwin, Origin of Species Ch1
I thought you might like to see a paragraph from Origin, so that you might decide to actually read the whole book, rather than speculate on what it might contain on puppies.