I believe there is a mass misconception between adaptation and evolution. Adaptation allows species to survive, evolution makes man from a monkey. You get a new flu shot every year because the virus adapts, it is still a virus and it is still the flu.
I'm pretty certain the shoe is on the other foot. Scientists aren't the ones with misconceptions about what evolution is and isn't. After all, they're the ones who suffered through grad school and who work with evolutionary models every day.
The general public doesn't understand evolution. For example, your dichotomy between adaptation and evolution is a false one. Adaptation
is evolution in that it is descent with modification, as Darwin first described it. This modern YEC attempt to separate adaptation from evolution is little more than a knee-jerk reaction against a word they don't like.
There are several different species of dog, but there is no evidence that a dog was ever anything but a dog.
There is if you go back into the fossil record. Check out the hesperocyonids.
Evolution is easy to look at in a broad perspective but when you get into the the details it loses all evidence.
I disagree. So let's talk details. What details about modern biodiversity does evolution not explain that is better explained by, say, a YEC creation model?
For example, we went from worms that had miniature feet like things and then the next thing on the chart from the Cambrian era is a Lobster with several feet, a body, and eyes.... So how did we get from this worm thing to the lobster thing without any transitional fossils? No evidence that multiple legs evolved, no evidence that a head evolved at all, no evidence that even eyes evolved. they just Poof, were there.
You're being really ambiguous here. What "worm things" and what "lobster things" are you referring to? Are these from the Burgess Shale? Whose study are you referring to that described the evolution of "lobster things" from "worm things"? You said evolution doesn't address the details. Let's address the details.
Some might say that we are missing the transitional fossils but even the top evolutionists are at a loss because they find it highly unlikely that we should be missing this many fossils.
Which "top evolutionist" said this, where, and when?
I'm all for adaptation and speciation, but once it crosses from one animal to another animal entirely, it loses all validity.
What's a "kind of animal"? Remember, please be specific so we can properly address which model fails when it comes to details.