You Darwinists are so predictable.
Show us a dog/horse or a fish/mammal and then we may believe."
Words like "variety", "breed", "sub-species", "species", "genus", "family", etc. are all matters of scientific definitions.
When genetic differences accumulate between populations of common ancestry, they may be classified as one or another depending on how much difference there is.
As for a "dog/horse" or "fish/mammal", that's just your fantasy.
bray: "What next, viruses becoming immune to anti-virus is a new species?
Name one fossil that was a transitory animal since there would need to be millions there should be a fossil record everywhere just like Darwin claimed there would be."
Here's my source for billions of individual fossils in hundreds of thousands of species.
All are "transitional" between their ancestors and descendants, if any.
Again, words like "breed", "sub-species", "species", "genus", "family", "order", etc., all are matters of scientific definition and all have many sub-categories between them.
bray: "Even he said if there is no fossil record then the theory has to be false.
The DNA trail is proving it to be a fake theory except for the most foolish."
In fact there's a huge & growing fossil record.
And DNA comparisons show not only how closely related individuals are, but also how long ago their common ancestors lived.
So what exactly are you, ah, braying about, FRiend?