Mark - I'm not quite sure what your question was
My point was to find where we would agree on a common ground, so we could start the debate at the point where we diverge. It's a pretty common way to debate coherently.
There are a ton of fossil records that do very clearly demonstrate that there was "one dog like creature" back 20 million years ago - and that from that point forward, depending on where the creatures lived they developed into wolves or dogs or other creatures. I was just making sure we all agreed with that knowledge before I made my next case. Are you saying you don't agree with this?
Yes of course, if we go *before* the 20 million mark, you get to the point where cats and dogs were one mammal creature. We have a lot of fossil record for that as well. So yes, at one point there was a cat-dog mammal. If you look at cats and dogs you can see how incredibly similar they are. Over time the "cat family" and "dog family" diverged until you had one "cat group" and one "dog group". And then over time those diverged.
Since dogs (and cats) are so common and easy to see / study I figured I'd start with those as our discussion case.
I agree that nature's changes take a long time and that specific directed breeding by Man for specific aims can be done much more quickly. My question though is does anybody here disagree with the dog/cat evolution chain, or can we agree this happened and use it as a basis for our discussion?