Another thing that should have added. This one I think you should think about:
You get Natural Selection and Artificial Selection. The two are exactly the same except that AS is when a human guides the process. If you look at breeders and what they've been able to do then it's quite amazing that they haven't been able to break through a set of lower and upper barrier for every species. What happens is that the species will either die out if you try to push it beyond that, or they become sterile. Then they always revert back to the original species.
Here's an example: There are brown wild rabbits in Australia now, but they're not native. The white domesticated type was brought there by foreigners. The white rabbits escaped and became identical to the common brown wild rabbits. By random changes the chances of this is ~0 and there are quite a few more implications. For one, There seems to be a revert function encoded in the DNA. The hypothesis for this has been made, but the implications are once again quite severe. How does the point to revert back to get defined? How did the brown rabbit in that environment become the standard for that cluster of DNA to revert to?
This is going to get long, but anyway I'M NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT THEY'RE WRONG AND I'M RIGHT. I'm saying maybe scientists are over-confident in their model and that there are many reasons to not blindly accept it.







