I would say mountains of misrepresentation is what your whole post is.<quoted text>
I support your skepticism in relation to the theory of evolution.
There is more variation amongst mankind and dogs, races & breeds, then there is in some organisms that vary slightly and are given a new species or sub species name. One can argue with an evolutionist for years and go around in circles about what is adaptation/microevolution as opposed to evolution/macroevolution.
Indeed individuals adapt during their life time with many mutations, epigenetic changes that are now known to be inherited and immunity. Evolutionists do not call this adaptation or evolution because individuals are not based on 'population genetics', and evolutionists would look a little silly to suggest evolution is happening to us as we speak.
This is a good link because the research is presented by an evolutionary researcher that not only suggests mankind share a common ancestor with an orang, not a chimp, but also speaks to how easily algorithmic data can be interpreted any way one wishes to support whatever they want and that includes the fossil evidence.
The same fossils have orang traits that can be used to tie mankind to orangs just like the same fossils can be used to link mankind to a knuckle walker and on the back of one single fossil to some unknown ape that was not a knucklewalker at all. Evolutionists call this empirical evidence. It is not!
If any theory relating to abiogenesis was close surely by now they would successfully made a 'species' in the lab by now. No one has.
Surely, if any theory relating to the scenarios that support evolution were close there would be clarity rather than more chaos with almost every new finding eg Ardi, recently found basilosaurus dated to 49mya that predates a supposed ancestor, Indohyus at 48mya, modern bird footprints with a reversed hallux dated to 212mya.
So TOE is a theory that is often misrepresented as being based on science, rather than mountains of misrepresentation.
There is very much clarity with the theory of evolution. It is so clear that it has been used to make successful predictions. It is so clear, that it is the basis of modern biology. Without it, most of biology wouldn't make sense.
What you are referring to is evidence that may or may not alter our view of the evolution of one group or another. None of these things shake the foundation of biology.
You refer to a variability in phenotypes of dogs and man to refute taxonomy. You can do that, but morphological characters can be stable or plastic. Traditionally, taxonomists have relied on characters that were fairly stable and differences in these characters would indicate that indeed it is a new species. This is often supported by genetic, ecological and geographical evidence among others. Now molecular biology is providing powerful tools to corroborate or refute the accepted systematics of taxa at different levels.
Further, there exist cryptic species complexes, where the morphology of each species in the complex is so similar they cannot be seperated easily. The grey treefrog complex of 2 distinct species that look alike but are not the same is one example. So obviously, morphology and phenotype can be used to distinguish among species, but it has its limits. Taxonomists are aware of this.
microevolution-change in a population by the addition of new information. The a new population with new trait or traits may establish, but they are still the same species. For instance resistance by some populations of bacteria to antibiotics or resistance to insecticides by some populations of insects.
macroevolution-change in populations over time that can result in extinction, speciation, and the establishment of higher taxa. Macroevolution involves deep time.