Animals have A or B, but AB is not evolutionary advantageous to survive.
Your binary thinking is a major flaw in your thinking. Nature is not necessarily binary and you asserting AB is not advantageous without evidence. There are many examples of gradients like the fact that humans have remnants of a third eyelid. Transitional forms are not AB entirely.
This is not goal, it is a simple statement of what exists. The explanation is that A moves to B along an evolutionary line, where none of the AB survive long term.
Again, what? You are stating as a fact that none of AB survive long term. You don't know that. The fossil record clearly shows that transitional forms have existed and do exist like the giant panda..
This is a result, not a goal. Further evidenced by lack of any animals that progressed from B back to A (result, not goal).
Again stating something as fact when the fossil record says otherwise.
Do you understand the difference between goal and result?
Do you? All your arguments are about A marching towards B. That is not how evolution works.
Evolution is all about results of traits towards viability.
Again this is flawed understanding of evolution. You keep stating using the term "results" when you mean goals. There are no goals in evolution. There are no results in viability. A species is viable if it lives.
Viability is the "goal" ;)
You just contradicted yourself
In my sentance, I clearly show that A progress towards B in such a way that AB doesn't remain behind.
Again evolution is not a ladder from A to B with AB in the middle. There could be C, D, E, F, and G which all are in between and become their own species.
That is a result, not a goal.
You contradicted yourself above.
The viability of AB is what I am questioning, since there is no such thing long term. Viability of half stages is in question.
Again your binary thinking is frustrating. Everything is not 1/2 steps. Again dolphins and whales are not half fish.
A mutates and starts progressing towards B, it either stops and reverts at some point, staying A or it continues to B. However, the AB stage is temporary, thus indicating long term viability of AB is limited if it exists
What? Your understanding of evolution is highly flawed. A is not mutating towards B as some sort of goal. A will mutate. B may eventually come out of it. Any steps in between isn't temporary if it lasts millions of years. C, D, and E could result. That is what is in the fossil record. See cats. See dolphins.
The Term Superiority is one of resultant progression. As far as I know, B never revered back to A
AGAIN, B is not the end goal. "Superiority" is a judgement. There is no such thing as reverting back because evolution always takes place. Take for example the cheetah. By your logic, the cheetah must be faster to keep evolving. That is not understanding of evolution. They cheetah could evolve to become a longer distance runner or ambush by stealth like jaguars. You cannot say that either method of killing is better.
Dogs and wolves are both Canines, and not enough differences exist to support your hypothesis.
No, dogs descended from wolves. The DNA proves it. Unless you are serious denial of facts (which at this point I don't doubt). And my hypothesis is not a hypothesis; it is a fact that wolves had advantages over dogs and disadvantages over dogs.
I've seen tamed wolves and wild dogs, to the point where the wild dogs were more dangerous to humans than tamed wolves.
If you want to keep a tame wolf around your family, then you are an idiot. As for dogs being tamed by humans, please don't conflate the subject. Wild dogs are not tamed and you know it.