Hi, IchiBan.
Let me try to clarify this a little bit.
Change happens.
We know this: we have seen it happen. We have seen it happen in populations. We know that no individual has exactly the same genome as either of its parents, but rather, has a unique blending of the two parental genomes. We also know that there are many ways in which
new changes are introduced into the genome.
This is a known, documented fact.
And, this is what we call "evolution" (or "microevolution," if you prefer).
It happens. We know it happens.
So, what do you expect from a population that has existed for many, many, many generations? Many, many, many changes, right? Because populations change over time, increasing the amount time increases the amount of change, yeah?
This is what we call a "null hypothesis." A null hypothesis is an explanation that holds true when nothing else is acting on the system. Then, we test all kinds of "alternate hypotheses," which are the "somethings else" that might be acting on the system, and, if a test uncovers no evidence for the alternate, we retain the null hypothesis as our explanation.
If you were to find something else that was acting on the system, we would have reason to question the universality of evolution. But, since no one has yet presented a "something else" that passes scientific testing, Coyote has no choice but to uphold the null hypothesis.
So, bring forth a tested hypothesis that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind": this is the only way you can make evolution go away.
-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.