sniggitydiggity,
Before you make up your mind about the plausibility of the "evolution" you ought to be sure which definition you are talking about. Classically, the processes of artificial and natural selection were distinquished, and evolution attached to natural selection. I'm not so sure that's true anymore. Since both artificial selection and natural selection produce the concept of common descent, finding evidence for the latter doesn't really separate which of the former two might have been involved. Obviously, creation by artificial selection would be creation, supposedly opposite to evolution.
Similar problems arise with random mutations versus genetic engineering. Or consider this: a sheep breeder discovers a gene that makes his sheep have better wool. Case one, the gene is in one of his sheep and so he artificially breeds that sheep, to get more good wool. Case two, the gene is in a virus, which he uses to biologically engineer one sheep, that he uses as in case one. Case three, the gene is in a virus, that he uses to infect his entire flock with the gene.
All of this is creation, is it not? Certainly, if the farmer discovered the gene, he would be given rights to its use, credit for creating the heavy wool producing sheep.
Stephen
™ Version 4.2