Since you have trouble with words on a page, try this instead:
Thank you for posting this!...I could not have chosen a better example of suggestion and assumption if I tried.
What they call "macro-evolution" is nothing but variety within a taxonomic family. All of the creatures this woman referred to (with probably the most annoying voice I have ever heard) are examples of adaptation and genetic blending. Look out for the expression "its a little tricky" and ask if this is really a scientific discussion....or if the prosecution is leading the witness your honor....
Starting off with dog breeds she makes some kind of correlation with drastically different breeds of dog as if this scenario fits macro-evolution somehow.....but since these are not examples of natural selection but artificial selection based on selective breeding to create the end result, it proves nothing but the ability of the gene pool to intermingle various traits. None of those breeds would exist in the wild. Then she says point blank that what we see in these different dog breeds is an example of "evolution". No its not! This is variety (artificially produced) within a taxonomic family......not macro-evolution at all. This is blatant and misleading falsehood.
In the link below, are the dog species that live and breed in the wild....all demonstrate the same basic physical structure but with variations according to location, habitat and food supply. It doesn't mean that they even have to be related.....the Creator could have made a variety of animals using the same basic physical characteristics and the same genetic material. Science cannot prove otherwise.
Wild Dog Species List With Pictures: Types Of Wild Dogs
The difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is evident if you know what to look for in the rhetoric......but the perception of the listener is "manipulated" by inferring that there is really no difference between the two, but time. This misleading assumption is not an established fact....far from it.
She says that macro-evolution is the development of a new species, but it isn't. A new "species" within one specific taxonomic family of creatures produces variety within that family of animals......they will never produce anything but slightly altered specimens of the original. Science has never proven any different.
Then we come to what is called "the biological species concept" which postulates that two species of the same creature that cannot interbreed are two separate species. Two species that look and act very similar but cannot interbreed are said to be examples of macro-evolution......
Western meadowlark and eastern meadowlark: two distinct species | Learn Science at Scitable
If this is supposed to be macro-evolution, then I think we are seeing a very clear example of science's problem....this is variety within the Meadowlark family, not macro-evolution. What a pathetic example! Even a child can see that these two are part of the same family....exactly like Darwin's finches were all still finches.
Canidae are all members of the dog family but there is a lot of variety in that family. Science suggests that they are all related and must have evolved from a common ancestor....but this is a suggestion made to prop up an unprovable theory.
This is how taxonomy works......Creatures can be members of the same family but there is variety within the genus and species. Dogs (canidae) belong to the "Order" of Carnivores but not all carnivores are dogs or are even related to them.
If you really listen to what this woman is saying you can see how much suggestion is offered as fact.
Like all your supposed "evidence" Sapiens....it falls way short of being even remotely convincing.......as usual.
