Nope. Breeding is not evolution. Breeding is the application of artificial selection (man made selection) to already existing living types. We simulate natural selection with our different breeding techniques, but the 'stock' with which we we work is already there. We merely modify it to suit or goals/needs.
Go back to what I said. I did not claim that breeding was evolution, as in EVOLUTION, the History of Life on Planet Earth. I claimed that it simulates evolution in some ways.
As for "the 'stock' with which we work is already there," what's the difference with evolution?? The stock with which Nature works is already there too. Life begets life. That is the very essence of the Theory of Evolution. I keep telling you, but you stubbornly refuse to understand. You have your guns pointed in the wrong place. Darwin, too, believed in God, the Creator. [However, the existence of God, while in no way denied by the Theory of Evolution, is neither essential nor necessary to the theory itself.] Science is not out to prove the existence or non-existence of God. If you wish to believe in God, the Creator, as Darwin did (and you know it), then no one, except free-thinking atheists maybe, are standing in your way. But not the Theory of Evolution.
What you understand to be the Theory of Evolution is what it is not (at least not in the commonly used application of the phrase in scientific circles!) You think that the Theory of Evolution is seeking to prove that life evolved from non-living materials, natural elements like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen and other types of atoms forming molecules that assemble spontaneously and one day plainly assume living and intelligent properties.
1. That is not what "The Theory of Evolution" is about. Let's go back to reading Darwin, Gould, and other leading scientists on Evolution!
2. Yes, there are scientists who DO investigate the chemical processes that lead to the formation of living forms. So, from a purely scientific viewpoint, they do treat life, not as something divine and magical, but essentially as a bio-chemical process. I suppose those are the scientists you really want to wind up, sit them down on school benches, and read the Bible to them.
3. But consider for a minute that somehow those scientists were able to create LIFE from INERT matter in the laboratory. Suppose that they demonstrate, again and again, that life is a chemical process. Suppose further that from those rudimentary living forms they create in the laboratory (once we more and less settle on the distinct properties of life) that they are able to either combine them in certain ways - or - influence their environment to stimulate them to combine in certain ways to form more complex and higher forms of life. Science is nowhere near that point (whether they ever will, I do not claim to know), but for the sake of argumentation, suppose all of this becomes a reality in today's or tomorrow's scientific labs. THEN, WHAT WOULD THIS PROVE?
a) To some, it would say that God does not exist.
b) To others, it would just show the greater glory of God, because he would have imparted the possibility of life formation in the very rudiments of matter, which would then argue for the increased possibility of life all over the universe.
c) This would in no way solve the mystery of the existence of the Universe or what happened at the instant of the Big Bang ( not a mere billionths of second after it ) or what even preceded the Big Bang [ if we are not too far off to conceive of an antecedent to the Big Bang, since Time itself is a relative concept, not independent from the Universe but just one dimension of a multidimensional model, far more complex than I, for one, could ever hope to understand. ]
Finally, we would be back to the same point where we are today: the impossibility to demonstrate scientifically the existence or non-existence of God. Believing in God the Creator, is a matter of personal faith. You cannot legislate it. Attacking the Theory of Evolution is fine to do, if you were to do it from a scientific standpoint, but you will achieve nothing if your aim is to demonstrate the existence of God the Creator. If what you want to believe in is the Tale of the Genesis in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, then by all means, be my guest!
I remain convinced that we cannot fruitfully discuss scientific matters by interjecting God into our scientific analysis. I also remain convinced, from everything that I have read on the matter, that the scientific Theory of Evolution, which I never described as infallible in its known formulation, has not concerned itself with proving or disproving questions of faith. True, scientists themselves can be great philosophers, just like they can be "believers", "non-believers", "politically minded", "ideologists", etc. Of course, they can be, because they are all human. However science itself, strictly speaking, is above believing or non-believing. Science itself is above political and ideological considerations. Science is neutral when it comes to that. However, as humans, we can use science as an affirmation of our faith in God, if we please, or not! That is our choice as individual human beings, but science can never dictate the choice for us all. That is not its nature.