Biological Evolution across family, order, class...kingdom, etc.

This debate originally started as ID vs. Evolution. ChristianPunk has contended that Evolution does not really include the Origin of Life (in this case, Abiogenesis) but only the Origin of Species after life began. He wants to exclusively debate Evolution, because he believes his strength is biology rather than chemistry. I understand this, but it makes it difficult to directly engage the two stances of Creation and Evolution because in Creation, both the Origin of Life and Origin of Species occur at the same time. If we leave out Origin of Life, Creation is not even allowed into the ring since all species originated at the origin of life. But I think I can make this work. This debate will be about Evolution across a higher taxonomic rank than just family or order, me Con, he Pro. Pro also requests that I go first, which is unusual since he will necessarily have Burden of Proof as to why Evolution is true. Since I don't exactly know the arguments he will use to defend his position, I risk attacking my own straw man version of him. Please excuse me for this in R1. I don't believe there is sufficient evidence for major evolutionary changes in lifeforms that result in viable results. Change over time by environmental pressure does occur, (cannids splitting off into wolves, coyotes, etc.) but the changes are almost exclusively the result of genetic information loss. That loss of recessive genetic traits leaves the next generation perhaps more adapted to the current environment, but less equipped to adapt again to a new environment. For example: If you have a small population of wolves, you have a very diverse genetic pool to draw from. They have been bred into all sorts of domestic dog breeds. The common ancestors of wolves would have had even greater genetic diversity, since they split off into Eastern Wolves, Grey Wolves, Eurasian Wolves, Coyotes, the extinct Dire Wolf, and probably others I'm not listing. However, you couldn't breed two Grey Wolves together and eventually get the genes of a Dire Wolf. They just aren't present. The same goes for Great Danes or Collies. You cannot breed exclusively Collies and end up with a Wolf. The information is lost. You could conceivably breed a Collie back out of a population of Wolves, though. So prove it: Ok. Let's use a simple Punnet Square to demonstrate. http://anthro.palomar.edu... Let's say a Wolf pair mate. They both have a diverse genetic pool, so they both carry genes for grey fur and brown fur. Grey is dominant, brown recessive. Gb When they mate, they have a 50% chance of producing an identically diverse offspring that are grey, but carry a recessive gene for brown fur. They have a 25% chance of producing a grey offspring that does not carry the gene for brown fur. This could be an advantage where there is more grey backround or direct sunlight. None of this pup's offspring would produce pups that stood out in a greyish environment unless the gene was bred back in. They have a 25% chance of producing a brown offspring that only carries the recessive gene, and cannot produce a grey offspring unless the gene is bred back in. Half the offspring would be somewhat more survivable in certain environments, but at a disadvantage away from that environment. Over even a very long time, the wolf population would only change to the extent that it had good genes available. It would never develop useful complex structures like wings or become bipedal unless the genes for such traits were already present. Thanks. Pro, please state your position.