Part of the message of Conservapedia is that the site takes a stand for Creation, which is the act of God in the first chapter of Genesis. The site does not believe that evolution is nothing more than a theory; in fact, Conservapedia declares evolution to be a complete and utter fraud.
A big part of saying that is is a fraud has to do with the evidence at hand - specifically, the fossil record and the interpretations handed to the general public by evolutionists of that fossil record. For example, there are a group of dinosaurs called "coelurosaurs" which scientists declare to be the direct ancestors of birds. Why? Because they have a similar-looking semilunate carpal, which is a bone in the wrist that makes the flight stroke possible, "and was probably co-opted by birds for
flight from a grasping function" that this site says. The words "looking", "probably", and "co-opted" in the previous sentence are words meant to declare that they are guessing, they are assuming, and they are making those guesses and assumptions based on nothing more than looking at it. No testing at all, yet they are declaring their interpretations to be fact. Overlooked in this example is the fact that a coelurosaur skeleton has a forward-positioned pubic bone in the pelvis; a bird has it facing backwards. Got that fact by looking it as well, but a scientist is just to busy concentrating on the wrists to be bothered by that minor discrepancy. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, the wrists prove it, and they probably had hip-replacement surgery somewhere along the line. Go figure.
Which leads to Rover.
The main explanation for evolution - one they say is supported by the fossil record - is to put it simply Animal A changing into Animal B. Fish turn into frogs. Frogs turn into lizards. Lizards turn into birds. Of course they are going to argue with the writer here on the semantics, i.e. lizards didn't turn into birds (dinosaurs did that!), the writer just doesn't understand science, why don't you look (there's that word - look!) at the fossil record, and so on. And they will demand that we all "look" at the fossil record - look at that little horsie grow into the bigger horsie, with all of those other horsies in between? "We see the beginnings of the
characteristic horse-like ridges on the molars." Emphasis added. They see. They didn't test.
Which leads to Rover.
They say that Animal A changed into Animal B. All by themselves. But, there is one case which they say (there's that other word - "say"!) man helped it out. Good ol' Rover. The domestic dog. Canis familiaris, esquire. Well, now it's Canis lupus familiaris, but that's another story. According to the evolutionists that be, Rover descended from the matings and selected breedings of wolves (the lupus above) several thousand years ago, and because of that breeding we all have our poodles, our wiener dogs, our lap dogs, our huskies, great danes, shepherds, hounds, pointers, setters, and those spotted things slobbering all over the clean seats in the fire trucks. All of them, the scientists say (that word again!) came from wolves.
Now, scientists are supposed to be smart guys, with I.Q.s higher than the surrounding neighborhood, so their word (again, it's what they say) has to apply. Wolves were the ancestors of domestic dogs. They said it. Having said that, are domestic dogs known only from fossils? Nope. Are wolves known only from fossils? Nope. Are both alive today? Yep. Wow, that means that the wolf-to-dog scenario can be tested in the lab! And these guys are scientists, which means they are smart guys, which means they can do it. They can replicate the conditions in the lab that the supposed first breeders of dogs did originally several thousand years ago.
After all - to paraphrase GEICO commercials - it's so easy, a caveman can do it. And it was cavemen - not scientists - who supposedly did the wolf-to-dog breeding. So say the scientists.
And when that was posted in the talk pages of Conservapedia, what did the detractors produce? Foxes. They produced evidence of fox selective breeding; they looked for particular foxes with floppy ears and good dispositions, mated them, and got mixed results - and those same detractors are telling us that we should accept the foxes as evidence that the cavemen did the same thing with the wolves.
The detractors never produced evidence of wolf breeding. The wolf is from genus Canis. The dog is from genus Canis.
The fox is from genus Vulpes. Different animal.
But they still say it happened. Not a shred of evidence, either from the lab or from Slag Flintrock's cave, but they say it happened. We have their word on it!