[BMCDA]

It seems you have misunderstood the concept of evolution. You think species are static but that's not the case. Changes occur only in the individual animal (the offspring is always a little bit different from its parents) but as long as a population stays together these changes are 'shared', i.e. the gene pool of this population mixes through the act of procreation. That's why this population _drifts_ away from it's original "position", i.e. this population is different from its predecessor several generations ago.
Now it can happen that a population gets split. That means the genetical changes in the individuals of these two populations are no longer 'shared' and as a result these two populations drift appart. Of course they also drift away from their original "position". If after several generations you take an individual from each of these populations and you cannot interbreed them then you can say for sure that you have two distinct species (notabene they live at the same time).
You expect that a population remains unchanged over a long period of time. This can happen (though slight changes always occur) if the environmental conditions don't change. But this is a very, very, very rare phenomenon. It's an exception rather than a rule. (A good example for this would be the coelacant, though slight changes happent even to him over the millions of years).
Therefore intermediates exist only as fossils if they're preserved (and that again is rather an exception than a rule). A cousin isn't an intermediate between you and your great-great-grandfather even if he may look just the same as this common ancestor (intermediates lie along the time axis).

[gore3000]

You expect that a population remains unchanged over a long period of time. This can happen (though slight changes always occur) if the environmental conditions don't change. But this is a very, very, very rare phenomenon. It's an exception rather than a rule. (A good example for this would be the coelacant, though slight changes happent even to him over the millions of years).

Where's the proof of the above? There are numerous species that have not changed one iota from the time they have been found. There are numerous species that have lasted tens of millions of years for which we have bones as proof. If evolution were true, this would be impossible. If as you say, even interbreeding populations change over time, we should almost never find fossils which are almost exactly alike from tens of millions of years apart.

Let's also note that if you cannot prove evolution from the fossil record. If you cannot prove evolutionary change over time. If you cannot prove evolutionary change in the present (because of not enough time) then you are admitting what I have been saying all along on these threads - there is absolutely no proof for evolution.

[GLDNGUN]

If you are saying that if you keep breeding dogs you can get all variaties of dogs you would be correct. Variation was part of the Creator's plan. If you say that if you keep breeding dogs you can get other animals you would be wrong and that's where evolution collapses. I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to say here is animal A; here is animal C, evolved from A; and here is animal B, the transitional animal between A and C. WHERE ARE ALL THE MISSING LINKS???? And still waiting. But I sure ain't holding my breath. ;-)