I beg to differ on one point raised earlier:
Given time and the right environmental forces, a dog could well evolve into a Mammoth.

Actually Horus, it would only be something resembling a mammoth, not an actual mammoth.

Besides which, it'd take more than one dog, surely ;)

A short history of evolution:

In the beginning there was a balanced eco-system. Theistic & non-theistic forces were largely in balance . Geometry/Mathematics, early theories of evolution ,atomic theory and even machines were developed. The cornerstone for this eco-system was experimentation & open discussion

However, a deterioration in the environment allowed theism to come to dominate .And much of the earlier thinking was lost or sidelined . The cornerstone for the bastardised eco-system was divine revelation & adherence to authority

After many centuries the environment began to recover & non-theistic thinking, including evolutionary theories began to re-emerge .

The new thinking was better suited to explaining the why & wherefores of the world, and spread. The previous dominant theistic thinking began to see its territories diminish . Now under stress from competition, theism fractured into a variety of smaller sub-species ,each with its own niche . So dire had things become that some areas of the world had to be set a side as national reserves for theistic thinking –where no other thought forms were allowed .

What theism remains outside such reserves has benefited from gene-drift from non-theistic thought . Whatever name it goes by, theism today is largely two parts non-theistic-humanism and one part theism. [ though it has to be said – there has been some gene-drift the other way as well, with the new climate-change theology claiming a non-theism status but resembling theism]

1) No offence intended but, it is hard to buy intelligent design, when one
sees life processes producing:
I) Factory-seconds (the two headed, the six armed models )
ii) Inconsistent quality (some models last <50 years others >100), &
iii) Discontinued models (extinct species)

And such errors & inconsistencies keep sneaking through the intelligent
design quality control processes.

It is clearly not all, or even largely, the result of man-made interference:
drugs, environmental pollution or loose living - as some will no doubt
suggest -as these defects have been with us since day one & show up even
in the most virtuous of populations.

If such deficiencies continually showed up in human production systems you'd
be looking to sack either your design or quality control staff.

2) Bugsy,
Re the dog-mammoth proposition:
I'll resist the temptation to lower the tone by resorting to idioms like
"If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck ..."

However, while it is more likely that dogs might evolve to something
"similar to" a mammoth. Evolutionary theory does not preclude a second
coming (exact, even down to the last chromosome). It might be improbably
considering the range of possible outcomes, but it's within the realm of the
possible.

And it's happened before, 'compare the pair' Julia Gillard & the Wicked Witch of the West
- exact, even down to the last freckle...'But one will retire with a bigger super payout...
(Hopefully, straight after the next election!).
['Sorry' Julia Gillard... & Belly]

Many of the same people who claim that the concept of evolution is somehow flawed and unscientific have no problem with the notion that man was created directly from dirt.

Add the literal belief in a talking snake and damnation due to the consumption of fruit from a magical tree and it becomes obvious that there's simply no point seriously discussing matters of science with these people.

Will gravity next become "intelligent falling"?