The only time "devolution" is correct is when it pinches from the theory of evolution after the fact. It then ignores reality by throwing in religious apologetics for TEH FALL! In the case of doggy-eugenics my dear Eugene, is that it's a deliberate attempt at minimizing genetic diversity to produce particular desired characteristics, the consequence of that is a reduction of robustness in some breeds (which is why some breeds are illegal). Cross-breeding introduces more genetic variety into the mix hence increases robustness.An astoundingly powerful argument for the theory of devolution is the PBS special: "Pedigree Dogs Exposed." The program description states: "Purebred dogs and related health issues from inbreeding are discussed." This program clearly proves that speciation in dogs produces an undeniable and directly observable generational increase in genetic diseases, cancers, infertility and expected extinction, all due to inbreeding. As I have written, "The logic is undeniably correct. Specialization is speciation. The generalists are more robust. Therefore speciation implies devolution."
Watch the movie here: everythingimportant.org/SDA/viewtopic.php...
"Heterosis — the general tendency for the hybrid progeny of most species to be more robust than their inbred parents."
The very definition of heterosis supports the theory of devolution!
This is in contrast to natural selection, where speciation is the natural byproduct of increased genetic variety. This increase in genetic variance is observed, but like natural selection, quite theologically inconvenient and therefore ignored by religious apologists such as yourself. Genomic degeneration is only a problem for very small populations, such as some big cats whose species have been hunted to near extinction for example. In the case of humans however our population has been increasing steadily, and while genetic problems can and do occur, it's currently more than compensated with due to population size and variance.
Have you had any luck convincing the evolutionist conspiracy chemists in providing you with the evidence you need to *retroactively* use to prove your global flood yet?