To say that they are a "new clade" is more of an assertion and rather meaningless. (We had a comment regarding clades in another thread. It is a vague term) In terms of genetic information and by the definition of species, Wolves and Dogs are the same species. They interbreed and can produce fertile offspring. They are different races/breeds only. The wolf population contained a larger quantity of genetic information that made the variation possible in the splitting off of the various other breeds. Mutations play some role in developing some characteristics of some of these breeds but not in a way that supports the ToE UCA model. Do you want to go deeper into why?
For the purpose of this thread, let's keep it on biology and what is observable. The past and how much time has elapsed is not testable. Save it for another thread.
A clade is simply a group of organisms with a common ancestor, it is not vague or meaningless at all; although since there is inbreeding I am using the term loosely. By clade I thought it was obvious that I was talking about the group of wolves that genetically separated from the rest of the species eventually becoming dogs.
We can go deeper; I haven't read through all of your posts in this thread yet, so feel free to reference something that I have missed.
If you want to keep it on what has been directly observed, exactly what kind of change do you expect to see in dogs over the last few hundred years (maybe few thousand - is that observable/written-record?) if ToE is a valid theory?
As far as bacteria go, or dogs for that matter, when in a stable environment, there is no selective pressure to evolve. Of course. this is predicted by any model.
So why expect bacteria, the most genetically diverse domain, to evolve into another domain in a few hundred years (since we had microscopes to observe them)? It's like saying we should be seeing humans evolving into something that is not eukaryotic.
Mike has already addressed the whale scenario. I think that topic was already discussed in a separate thread. The hypothesis falls far short, I have a degree in paleontology. I don't believe it.
I'm just saying it would be nice to show that the number of mutations required for whale evolution is highly improbable given the amount of time we have to work with before simply asserting that there is not enough time. You may have a degree in paleontology, but if we are going to look to expertise it would be prudent to note that the vast majority of paleontologists do conclude that whales evolved from land mammals, and the proposed transitional fossils are transitional fossils (this doesn't mean those transitional species are necessarily direct ancestors to extant whales due to the branching pattern of evolution, or that every initial characteristic thought of for a given fossil is accurate).
No, what I am saying is that the ToE asserts that this DID happen over millions of years. What I am also saying is that in order for there to be confirming evidence of this, there needs to be demonstrations, observations, or biological experiments which will show that mutations can accumulate such as to write significantly new and complex genetic code. We don't need to show dogs or any organism change all the way to a new family or order. Just a series of coordinating accumulating mutations of that nature that ToE claims. The many breeds of dogs show some change is possible. But there is a pattern and predictability to it and it is not support for the UCA model. Feel free to pick a breed, any breed....that you think is on its way to becoming something significantly "new" and not just an evolutionary dead end. Which breed of dog has genetic information that is significantly unique, more diverse, or complex than the starting ancestor...the wolf? If you can think of one, let's discuss it from a genetic information stand point.
So we shouldn't expect to see macro-evolution in the amount of time since recorded observation, but we should be recording mutations that are near macro-evolution level in order to support UCA? I really don't get what you think we should expect in observation. We shouldn't expect dogs to be "on its way to becoming significantly new" in any measurable way for the amount of time that we have been observing/breeding them.
New species and sub-species/breeds are known to typically have less genetic diversity than the parent population; speciation (and it's lower level analogues) usually is divergent/branching rather than one population becoming significantly different from its ancestral population over time without any branching forming a new species/breed (i.e. cladogenesis vs. anagenesis). It takes time for the new population to accumulate genetic diversity again via mutations and fixation.
Of course it doesn't. The is only one criteria for organisms in regards to ToE or ID Theory, and that is to survive. However, ToE says that evolution proceeds in any "direction", which includes increasing complexity in its instructional information. ID Theory says that it can meander in a relatively lateral direction or degrade. But it will not move in any significant way "up." The many breeds of dogs demonstrates this.
What is increasing complexity in its instructional information? We see mutations that duplicate DNA, and others that change the bases to form new proteins. There is no theoretical limit (anymore so than there is in ID based on physics/chemistry), although there is a question of viability in going from stage A to stage B - i.e. each stage must be viable (not necessarily more fit; ironically losing fitness can sometimes be a good thing as it can position a population to climb a different "hill" in the fitness landscape reaching a higher local maximum than before).
I know you alluded to this, but just to make it abundantly clear: ToE doesn't say things must always proceed "up"; degradation is part of ToE too.
In essence direct observation gives us micro evolution, with genetics giving us known mechanisms for this change. Macro evolution is inferred from that plus other lines of evidence from genetic analysis to the fossil record to biogeography/paleobiogeography. You can come up with some 'interesting' ideas about UCA with direct observations of the type you are restricting us to here, but I don't think you can demonstrate it without the other lines of evidence.
One way two competing theories/hypotheses/models are resolved is to simply pit them against each other to see which one has the better explanatory power. So one thing to consider is what direct observation do we have of a designer designing life? What mechanisms have we directly observed this designer using to create life? I know this is beyond the scope of the thread, but it is something to consider for future discussion.