Foxes were introduced in Australia by the Europeans. The ones in Europe are still reddish in colour but the ones in Australia are now brownish in colour, matching the environment.
They're all foxes. That's not evolution.
I agree, this can be considered as an evidence of evolution.
No, that's not evolution, that's adaptation.
Jumping to a conclusion that is clearly unsupported by the available evidence is not scientific.
Darwin did the same thing -- extrapolating far beyond the available evidence. Darwin looked at finches’ beaks, and from small changes he extrapolated to state that evolution from one group to another had occurred.
Evolutionsists point out that "microevolution" has been upheld by tests in the laboratory.
That's true. Creationists and evolutionists see the same variations in the plant and animal kingdoms that evolutionists see. Bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics, yet they still are nothing but bacteria. Beaks of finches in the Galapagos Islands do change. But to this day, they're still finches, reproducing other finches -- not ostriches, lemurs monkeys, gorillas, or apes.
Macroevolution -- changing from one kind of animal to another -- has been inferred, but never documented.
...They believe that this was a result of fox and wolf cross breeding.
I don't think they know what they're talking about.
Foxes and wolves cannot interbreed; or if they could, their offspring would be infertile.
Members of the dog genus Canis such as wolves and dogs cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family of the Canidae such as the fox (Genus Vulpes).
The reason is in their genetics. The wolf, dingo, dog, coyote, etc. all have 78 chromosomes arranged in 39 pairs. This allows them to hybridize and produce fertile offspring. Other members of the Canidae family, such as the red fox, which has 38 chromosomes, cannot hybridize with the wolf-like canids.
