Actually that's not what evolution predicts. And if that DID happen, THAT would disprove evolution definitively and be much stronger evidence for some kind of spontaneous generation. Speciation isn't as cut and dried as it's often made out or presented to be. Don't think of it as a horse giving birth to a pegasus, it's more like compounded genetic differences driving a gulf between populations. Think of a gradient from blue to orange, on the far left you're definitely in blue territory, on the far right you're definitely in orange territory, but the closer you get to the middle it's harder to figure out.
Here's a video on ring species that explains it pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8
Both potholder54 and Aronra are worth watching if you're interested in understanding evolution better. Specifically AronRa's
Falsifying Phylogony and
Fundamental Falsehoods of Creationism. They are slanted specifically to anti-Young Earth Creationism, because that is usually the most vocal anti-evolution contingent but the science is really well presented.
Nope! Dogs ARE wolves. They really are still wolves. They're a wolf that's adapted to living with humans, but they're still wolves. At BEST, they are a subspecies. The plasticity of the dog genome is pretty unique, but that does not override their genetic history. But "wolf" is a much broader category than many people in North America might know. The popular image of the Timber Wolf is a specialized wolf too, just like the dog. They're specialized to hunt large game in packs. Dogs more likely originated with the Middle Eastern Wolf, but there's a lot we don't know about the process of domestication (and I personally am not up to date on what the current research is). Mark Derr's book is supposed to be pretty good. He was on Science Friday this week!
http://sciencefriday.com/segment/01/25/2013/canine-conundrum-how-dog-became-man-s-best-friend.html
But saying dogs are not wolves is as incorrect as saying humans are not mammals or birds are not dinosaurs.
Dude. Birds are
not dinosaurs. Dinosaur encompasses a MASSIVE group of extinct animals, including sauropods, that have very tenuous genetic connections to modern birds (if any, because there are plenty of well documented cases of convergent evolution). Birds =/= dinosaurs. They have probable ancestors among the dinosaurs based on the fossil record, but there is no DNA evidence where we've definitely looked and said, "huh, these two are genetically the same group of creature". Also, some dinosaurs had fur. No birds have fur.
Just because an extinct group of animals are ancestors to a living population does not mean they are the same creature. That's like saying there's no such thing as foxes and wolves and dogs and black bears and grizzly bears because they're all just variations of amphicyon.
Humans are mammals. That comparison has nothing to do with anything, because nobody is saying dogs are not mammals. It would be more like saying humans are not chimps. Which is true. Humans are not chimps.
Dogs are not wolves. There is less in common between dogs and wolves genetically, phenotypically, and behaviorally than there is between Canadian greys and coyotes. Feral dogs never revert back to a wolf-like phenotype after living in the wild for several generations. Most domestic animals revert back to a wild phenotype that is nearly identical to their closest ancestor. Dogs revert to reddish yellow, prick eared dogs (see dingos as a well established example of this).
Dogs originate from several points of domestication, including non wolf canids. There are some extinct domestic canids that have no wolf blood at all. Some lines of dog (like GSDs) had wolf recently added (in the past 120 years). Canines in general seem to have a lot of plasticity between species, coyotes, wolves, jackals, etc. producing fertile hybrids with each other and with dogs. Does that mean golden jackals are wolves as well? No.
The idea of species is a human one, because we like putting things in little boxes and drawing little charts and naming things. Really, that's not how things work. You can hybridize rat snakes from the genus elaphe with king snakes from the genus pantherophus and get very fertile, vigorous hybrids.
What a lot of people regard as evolution, I see as adaptation. Changing beak shapes to fit different flower shapes is an adaptation. It doesn't create a new species of hummingbird. Blurry spots becoming predominate in one leopard frog population where another has sharply delineated spots doesn't mean they're two different species now. How many adaptations does it take to make a new species? If you go by the definition of whether or not they can hybridize and produce fertile offspring, then we've really screwed up somewhere if different genuses can do it.
ETA: Graargh! My browser is so screwed up!
ETAETA:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/276/5319/1687.short
Mitochondrial DNA control region sequences were analyzed from 162 wolves at 27 localities worldwide and from 140 domestic dogs representing 67 breeds. Sequences from both dogs and wolves showed considerable diversity and supported the hypothesis that wolves were the ancestors of dogs. Most dog sequences belonged to a divergent monophyletic clade sharing no sequences with wolves. The sequence divergence within this clade suggested that dogs originated more than 100,000 years before the present. Associations of dog haplotypes with other wolf lineages indicated episodes of admixture between wolves and dogs. Repeated genetic exchange between dog and wolf populations may have been an important source of variation for artificial selection