Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations.
As a micro-evolution example a wolf is not a dog, but all dogs are descended from a population of wolves.
It isn't a matter of a single wolf transforming into a dog... or even a single dog being born to wolf parents, it's about all the little traits that are helpful to dogs developing separately in the population and becoming more common from generation to generation as the ones without them don't thrive.
On a small scale of thousands of years you can get very distinct sub-species like Canis familiaris and Canis lupus... and the genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates that this trend can continue to much more significant changes on a longer time frame.
So, while a dog is still a canine... it's also still a carnivore, still a mammal, still a vertebrate and still an animal.
With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor it's a matter of the populations splitting into the forest and climbing focused chimps and the savanna focused ancestors of humanity. The complicated tree of the savanna apes only has humans left now, but we have fossil evidence of many more species. In fact around 100 thousand years ago there were at least 5 distinct hominid species.
You've probably seen this image of fossils of the extinct species that clearly shows how difficult it is to differentiate "ape" from "man".
View attachment 315534
You wrote:
"Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations."
"Evolution" is a word Darwinists persistently use in a cognitively meaningless way, as you're doing, here. It's not the name of any biological reproduction process.
Oh, and, by your word, "populations," do you mean groups of individual animals? And, by your word, "generations," do you mean groups of individual animals?
You wrote:
"It isn't a matter of a single wolf transforming into a dog"
Why do you choose to say "a single wolf," and to not, instead, just say "a wolf"? What's the difference between what you would call just "a wolf" and what you would call "a single wolf"?
Darwinists say
"Wolves evolved into dogs." Wolves are individuals, no? So, are Darwinists, when they say that, affirming something about wolves—that is, affirming something about individuals? If they are not, then what they are demonstrating by saying
"Wolves evolved into dogs" is that they cannot get human language to work for them. And that is because Darwinists haven't got any cognitively meaningful thing to say, therein. Darwinists have all sorts of verbal forms they like to say, but, almost invariably, Darwinists qua Darwinists have no propositional content behind those verbal forms—they fail to be expressing any proposition(s) therein. When Darwinists say things like
"Wolves evolved into dogs," not only are they not affirming a true proposition, but what they are doing does not even rise to the level of affirming a
false proposition.
You wrote:
"With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor"
No non-human is an ancestor of any human. No human is a descendant of any non-human. Both parents of every human who has parents are, themselves, humans. Trace any human's descent through any line, for as many "begats" backward as you'd like, and every member of that ancestry is a human, and not a non-human:
...human → human → human → human → human → human → human → human → human...
(
→ = "is the parent of a")
Numerous Darwinists have given lip service to agreeing with this elementary truth, but invariably, every single one of them, has then, out of the other side of his/her mouth, blatantly contradicted it by telling me that non-humans are ancestors of humans. Darwinists continue their war against truth and logic, for which war they even coined a ridiculous name: "fuzzy logic". For my part, being a rationally-thinking person rather than a Darwinist, I'll continue to adhere to truth and logic.
You wrote:
"You've probably seen this image of fossils of the extinct species that clearly shows how difficult it is to differentiate "ape" from "man"."
You don't differentiate between non-man and man? Also, are those sarcasm quotes you put around your word, "ape," and around your word, "man"? By your word, "ape," do you mean non-man? By your word, "man," do you mean non-ape?
Notice your phrase,
"fossils of the extinct species"—another nonsense phrase. A fossil is remains or a casting of remains of an
animal that has died. Just as, out of one side of the Darwinist's mouth, he/she says
"Animals evolve," and then repudiates that by saying, out of the other,
"Animals don't evolve—species evolve," I'd not be surprised to see you follow suit with that asinine practice by saying something like,
"Animals don't become fossilized—species become fossilized."
You wrote:
"...genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates..."
That's a funny phrase,
"evidence demonstrates." I mean, by
"demonstrate," what would you mean if not
"give evidence"? So, is this what you mean when you say
"evidence demonstrates":
"evidence [gives evidence]"?
If you wish to tell us that
giving evidence for the proposition, P, and
demonstrating the proposition, P, are not one and the same thing, then please feel free to tell us exactly how, according to your imagination, the evidence-giving differs from the demonstrating.
