Does the evolution model offer sufficient explanation for the diversity of life forms

I readily admit that I could be using the term speciation incorrectly. What I mean, when I used the term is the changing of one species in to another - but I do not mean this in the "breed" sense, where you can take a bulldog and a schitzu and make a bullshitzu :-) and, I am fairly certain that it has never been observed either, let alone a transition from one higher taxonomy group into another, like fish to amphibeams, and amphibeams to mammals. Also, limitations are observed in scientofic endeavors such as animal and plant breeding. For example, the dairy cow. Breeders have tried increasing the fat contebt of milk peoduced from dairy cows, because a higher fat contebt means that more milk can be processed and produced from the same amount given by the dairy cow. Dairy farmer breeders have reached the highest level of fat content that can be reached. The exact same thing is true with sugar beets. The difference being, instead of more milk able to be produced, we get more sweet sugar, if they could only breed a higher content in a sugar beet, but again, they have reached a limit. And, since there are these easily verifiable limits, it stands to reason that macroevolution is not logically deduced from microevolution, no matter how simple an analogy is made, evolution is not a simple matter of counting coins. It would be the equivalent of deducing you can make a quarter, if you only gather enough nickels. I don't recall ever claiming that all scientists do not believe mutations can account for macro scale evolution, not here in this debate or anywhere else. However, there are actually different "camps" of evolutionary scientists, and I am glad you brought up the point. Because there are a group of scientists that believe the mutations occur during the development of the fetus, called evo-devo, because they don't see it occuring any other possible way. This concept says that the mother of the animal evolving hasn't changed but that the inherited evolved trait starts in the fetus and then gets passed on from there. While another camp says it happens to the mother and is passed on that way. There are a few of these distinctions and I hope to post them specifically in one of the following rounds. But the fact remains that all of these differing camps have come up with their theory because they do not believe the other theory possiblw (not in the way that sufficiently explains lifes diversity) and they all deny that natueal selection is sufficient as well. Speaking of which, you clearly don't understand natural selection of what other scientists have said (recently) about it, because as I tried explaining before "natural selection" only works by removing anything not "adapted" o its surroundongs. Natural selection can not explain a giraffes neck growing, or a turtle having a shell, of wings supposedly showing up on animals that become birds. It ONLY removes animals that can't fly, if wongs are necessary for survival, nor does it cause a neck to stretch when there is a lack of food lower on the ground. The giraffe, by the way, is a perfect exampke of why macro-evolution is impossible. The giraffes circulatory system is so powerful because it has to pump blood all the way up the neck in to the brain. However, if a giraffe bends his head down (as they do at times, even for grazing), the pressure of the circulatory system would cause their head to explode. However, they have a ballast type system, similar to how submarines work. Therefore, NO giraffe would have survived an elongated neck, wothout the ballast system, and they would have never developed a ballast system without having an elongated neck.