How about putting mosquitoes in the London Underground and waiting 100 years?
How about raising wolf puppies and artificially selecting them for 20000 or so years to the point that teacup poodles and Great Danes can't breed? (Ie are separate speices)
How about the genetic experiments I alluded to: Say a genetic marker is common to cows and whales, but is not found in horses. Which other species will it be found in? Rhinos, hippos, pigs, camels, deer, platypuses, what? The ToE can answer this, and so far its answers have always been confirmed by genetic analysis. What is the corresponding answer for any "alternative theory"?
That would be intelligent design as a mechanism for changing allele frequency.
You sure that's where you want to take the discussion?
And how would any of that disprove my point? Are you reading my posts, or are you just making assumptions?
Your pointing out that we can conduct selective breeding to change a species traits is absolutely meaningless, unless you are asserting the ID argument.
You want to equate a human brain selecting traits to natural selection. This seems counter to your own argument. Selective breeding of animals does not take 20,000 years. It can be done very, very quickly.
The question is not whether major differences (like human selection) can lead to change. The question is how extremely miniscule changes can possibly add reproductive advantage, which I take it is your one and only accepted method of evolution.
In your mosquitoe experiment (which I take it wasn't planned or controlled, so not really an experiment) what is your proof that the mosquito's change was due to beneficial natural selection and not simply a mutation in an isolated population without any substantial harm? Again you are projecting a "why" when simply don't know.
Your examples just as easily prove my theory as yours. In effect they show that evolution occurs (I've never disputed that), but other than selective breeding, how do they answer the "why"?