No "dodge" from me, but your ridiculous argument is the very definition of "dodge".
In fact, every animal is a "mutated animal" which has often "changed species" over many millions of years.
Or to put it another way: no animal today is the same as its ancestors were millions of years ago.
So let us begin here: the very word "species" is a total construct, which means only what scientists say it means, and has itself, uh, "evolved" over time.
If you look up the term "biological classifications" you will find that they begin at the top with Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class and at the bottom end: Genus, Species, Sub-Species & Breed.
Breeds & Sub-species readily interbreed (i.e., dogs), while species normally do not, and different genera cannot interbreed naturally.
That very generally is the criteria which define those terms.
One of my favorite examples is Zebras, which all look alike to me, but on close DNA analysis turn out to have over a dozen different breeds and sub-species within three different species and two different genera.
DNA analysis shows, and fossils support that those Zebras with the most similar DNA have the most recent common ancestors, and those in different species or genera have very distant past common ancestors.
The general rule is: the more similar their DNA, the more likely they are to interbreed, making them related sub-species.
But the more different their DNA, the less likely to naturally interbreed making them separate species and genera.
Of course, your religious beliefs may force you to refuse to see "evolution" in that data.
But science, by definition, cannot refuse to see what is obviously there.
The objection raised by bray turns on time scale and the lack of ability to test interbreeding between ancient ancestors and living descendants. However, there is a phenomenon that shows that small incremental changes in genome can result in different species (though it also in the process calls into question the utility of the notion of species): Rassenkreis (also called “ring species”, though they don’t meet the usual definition of species), as for example Larus gulls and greenish warblers in Asia.
In each case there is a region where the organisms cannot survive (the Arctic Ocean or the Himalayas in the two examples), and traveling around it one finds birds which can interbreed with their neighbors, until one comes to a place where there are two similar sorts of birds which can’t interbreed (two species), though one can interbreed with its neighbors going clockwise and the other with its neighbors going counterclockwise.
bray: Try this on for size: The identification of the Hebrew (and Greek) words in Genesis usually Englished as “kind” with the modern scientific notion of species is a mistake.