The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Esquilax]

That was an example of what I mean by completely different species.
Is it your view that ALL life has a common ancestor?

That is the inference one can draw from the very clear evidence for evolution, and it is supported unanimously by phylogenetic recapitulation and morphology.

You however, asked for an example of cats giving birth to dogs, and there's only two ways to take that: one is that you don't have the first clue as to what evolution is and does, as if you did you'd know that the discrete dividing line you're looking for will never be possible, as evolutionary changes are small and gradual, meaning the change from one species to another is a gradient, not a series of individual steps. Each organism in the chain will always be a member of the species its parents were, although that species might be different from, say, what their ancestors were a few thousand generations back.

The other way I could take that is that you do know how evolution actually works, and have dishonestly configured a question that cannot be answered as a way to get one over on us, as though you can redefine what evolution is by fiat assertion and then say that because your straw-evolution isn't real, the real thing also cannot be. Either way, nobody is required to pretend that your misapprehensions/misrepresentations are the same as the real definition. You can either discuss evolution or not, but what you can't do is try to discuss what isn't evolution as though it is.

I do have one question though: why the hang up about species transitions? Species is just a human defined concept, it's not some baked in objective barrier that existed in nature before we came along. All that's happening is that a given lineage is changing so that its current categorization is no longer appropriate; it's just the real world showing that it's bigger and more fluid than our definitions. That happens all the time. When you have these incredulous reactions toward changes in species, you're basically just boggling at a word.

That's not the point, the point is, where has one animal family been observed to split off into a separate animal family? (however you wish to define it)

Why are you arbitrarily setting the limit at "animal families"? Evolution doesn't just describe that, it describes any genetic change over time in a population. Are you just making up your own definition based on ignorance (don't think I didn't see the "just a theory!" moment of astounding fuckwittery from you on the last page) or do you understand that the kind of change you're asking for takes such a long length of time that no human could possibly observe it?

I guess what I'm asking is, are you being ignorant, or a liar? Please do let us know; it's good to have an idea which of the two kinds of creationist we're dealing with here.