Bears yes, dogs no.
Creation yes, Intelligent Design no.
Can you tell me what convinces you "dogs no".
I'm unfamiliar with the details and it won't help me to understand your position to read "facts" explained by those who believe this is a common ancestor of bears and dogs.
Since I was young, the argument that evolution is unproven because there are no fossils of "missing links" has been quite popular. This purported ancestor is considered by evolutionists to be the "missing link" for dogs and bears. But you are not convinced. How is it lacking?
Given the incredible number of intermediate "species" which must exist to support evolution, it would seem to me extremely unlikely that the exact "missing link" would be found for dogs and bears. It seems more likely that a specimen somewhat along the line of dogs or bears would be found. This would shift the similarity in one direction or the other.
An alternative, and perhaps more likely, explanation is that the ancestor is actually somewhere along some dead end that branched prior to the actual branching into dogs and bears.
I find it amusing that "creationists" find themselves trying to reduce the miraculous nature of their beliefs. If an omnipotent Creator wished to create ALL of the evidence of evolution needed to snare the skeptic and test the faith of the faithful, such a Creator could do it.
If the Creator included among His creations some positive proof that alternative explanations for the universe were false, there would be less need for faith.
I have a recently retired friend who is active in the effort to provide scientific explanations for Biblical events. It was entertaining to hear his explanation that only some pure examples of domesticated animals, which species had been made impure by contact with man, were invited onto the Ark. The impure examples were destroyed in the flood and non-domesticated animals were spared from the ravages of the local flood and didn't need protecting.