Trying to find the stawman here.
I already pointed it out. You need to READ my posts. It seems that your cherry picking of my post allows you to imply I never demonstrated your strawman...
You were implying that I said that all the changes between wolves and beagles are observed. I never made such a claim that is your strawman. Here is what I said in full which demonstrates your strawman, in which I wonder why you cannot see it?
"Both the wolf and beagle are dogs... We know that dogs give birth to dogs... What is so hard about that?
True, nobody did observe the changes from one dog breed to another dog breed.... What is your point, since this is a strawman of what I did say before.... (that is all I seem to get from you )...
"We observe dogs giving rise to baby dogs... To claim that the ancestor of dogs was and only ever was a dog, fits in with that dogs give rise to baby dogs."
"New dog (and cat) breeds have come up from artificial selection so yes variants have been observed, however they are all still dogs. Hence my point."
Did I ever say that all the changes between wolves and beagles was observed? I did say that dogs giving birth to dogs is observed and that some new variants of dogs have been observed since we created them via breeding programs."
I will ask you to not cut anything out of what you quote from me since what you did here seems dishonest.
1st sentence) You agreed with the first part so by definition I did not misrepresent your viewpoint. On top of that I didn't refer to your viewpoint but rather stated a fact that neither of us had witnessed something.
You were implying that I said that all the changes between wolves to beagles was observed, (as I said clearly in the post you are responding to, please read my post). I never made such a claim, that was your strawman.
2nd sentence) So if "I" were to say... Wait a minute, does that say "I"? I thought a strawman required a second party.
I was using that as an example and wrote that in that way so as to not make a strawman.
Maybe I am unfamiliar with what a strawman is.
How is it not speculative to say that a Beagle came from a wolf ancestor?
Did I say it wasn't speculative? Putting YOUR words in my mouth is not an honest debate "tactic"
However (as I said before, please read my post), you said it yourself...
Absolutely, all we really observe today is one organism giving birth to the same type of organism.
That is 100% observable, there is absolutely no reason to think that past animals did anything different.
So dogs coming from dogs is supported by the evidence that dogs give rise to dogs as well as new breeds of dogs... Connect the dots.
However if you have issues with this then why in the world are you an evolutionist? What evolution implies is much more speculative.
A Poodle wouldn't give birth to a Great Dane.... As I said before they are variants of the same organism. Or are you going to draw the line at different breeds of the same organism? Is this your plan?
Perhaps consider that variants of the same organism.... are the same organism... So they are in no way evidence for evolution.
Common descent implies changes BEYOND the natural variation we see, where is the evidence for THAT. You cannot simply point to variation and say that is evidence, because you need to demonstrate how such change can be used as evidence for evolution.
We can see a wolf give birth to a wolf, and a Beagle do likewise, but nobody has actually observed with their own eyes the generations of births that lead to this change from one kind of organism (a wolf is one kind of organism), to a beagle (which is a different kind of organism)
No they are the same kind... Dog kind...
See, the term organism is ambiguous.
Only because you want it to be, though you said kind....