@Meth - not moving the goal posts, the standard is clear. Evidence demonstrating the change from one species to another (macro) not small changes within a species (micro) such as a dog "evolving" into a slightly larger, more hairy dog. Please leave all pigs teeth out, no hoaxes, real evidence (don't bother, it doesn't exist).
Well, it certainly sounds like your mind is made up and you wouldn't change it or consider anything no matter WHAT the evidence. In that case, why bother talking about any evidence in the first place.
Also, you seem to be self-contradicting a bit. Now, all dogs are subspecies of Canis Lupus Familiarus, I do believe. So a dog that was not part of that species WOULD still be new species, something like Canis Lupus Differentus. That would both satisfy one part and fail to satisfy the other part. Are you wanting to show something becoming radically different? Would a fly to a new/different species of fly do it? Or would it have to be a fly becoming a wasp, or a fly becoming an earthworm?
In a previous post, I did post observed instances of speciation. I'll give the link again:
Observed Instances of Speciation
This involves such things as:
a plant with DOUBLE the number of chromosomes as its parent that could not interbreed with its parent, several hybrid plants that are fertile in and of themselves, a plant that became able to self-pollinate, all SORTS of things in houseflies (mating rituals, inability to crossbreed with ancestor populations...), various beetles and worms, and all sorts of things in bacteria (like the ability to digest nylon, which has been very recent, since nylon is very recent).
These show new species that cannot interbreed/fit the definition of different species. Thus, that meets your challenge.
As for your question about 'pre-coelacanth' fish, that would be easy. Coelacanth fossils are about 400 million years old. Which would mean any fossil BEFORE that is a pre-coelacanth fish, no?
And what do you mean 'complete evolution'?
And again, I have never said Genesis is false. You are reinforcing the false dichotomy with every post you end in 'Genesis is reliable and true'. It IS reliable and true. Just not as a science or history textbook.
Metherion