I have no need to address it. I am not an evolutionist. I have no problem with the fact that dogs have been domesticated and have been breeded by men in such a fashion that different lineages result in vastly different appearances and traits, but they are all still dogs. They aren't cats.
That's only speculation, an assumption based on guesswork. Noone has ever witnessed a poodle turn into a great dane. Get back to me when you can turn a wolf into a chichuana in a lab.
No, and dogs aren't wolves or coyotes, either, but I don't know anyone who doubts that dogs, wolves and coyotes all shared a common ancestor.
This is wrong. You do need to address this. bobdsmith has very effectively shown that the same arguments used to dismiss, say, dinosaur to bird evolution (not accepted by most creationists) make the same amount of sense (not much, admittedly) when used against the wolf-to-poodle evolution most creationists profess to accept.
The ICR version [my paraphrase]: "So one day a snake gives birth to a bird. But where is there another little bird for it to mate with?"
The bobdsmith version: "Have you ever seen a wolf give birth to a poodle? What would be the chances of a male poodle and a female poodle coming into existance at the same time and then mating?"
I am not an evolutionist.
That doesn't get you out of the problem. That gets you into it.
I have no problem with the fact that dogs have been domesticated and have been breeded by men in such a fashion that different lineages result in vastly different appearances and traits, but they are all still dogs.
You have the problem that the dopey creationist strawman which supposedly precludes the kinds of evolution you don't accept also precludes the kinds you do. You need to address this.
Care to list all the morphological similarities and differences between a Great Dane, a Pug and a Cheetah?