"That's because, quite simply, there's no such thing as a species in that sense. They are only observable by differences, and to call one thing a dog, say, and another a wolf, is simply a matter of convention."

"I would agree, however the numerous "hindsight" experiments including the evolution of moths in the UK throughout the industrial age to the present demonstrates an attempt of experimentaion."

While many things might point to the jumps required for evolution, I don't believe that the two instances above do. In both cases above, all that is illustrated by observation is that the animals in question contained much more genetic material -- much more genetic possibility -- than was manifest at any one time. These merely point to the subtractive abilty of a species to adapt -- the changes illustrated by the moths, or by the differences in dogs, are all merely physical manifestations of genetic material already within the possiblity of the single species. No new genetic material was necessary for the change in manifestation -- both the moths and the dogs are fully capable of mixing back to a more "original" appearance by interbreeding. They are also capable of new, never-before-seen manifestations still "latent" within the same genetic material.

There is no evidence that the physical differences that we refer to in man as "race" are adaptations that will(would) lead to an evolutionary change. We are exactly the same species -- in fact, we are exactly the same race.