It's pretty simple really when you do not ignore observational data.
Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new infraspecific taxa entered into the record (Afro-Asian).
Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate is a new infraspecific taxa entered into the record (Chinook).
The Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. Neither evolved into the Afro-Asian and no missing links are missing.
The Husky remains Husky, the Mastiff remains Mastiff. Neither evolved into the Chinook and no missing links are missing.
Just as T-Rex remained T-Rex and Triceratops remained Triceratops - as each and every one of them did from the oldest fossil found to the youngest one found.
Fossils have simply been misconstrued as belonging to separate species, when as per empirical observations they are simply different infraspecific taxa of the same species.
These:
Are in reality no different than these:
Just different infraspecific taxa of the species to which they belong.
If evolutionists had never seen a dog before and found fossils of the Husky and Mastiff, and then later in the strata found fossils of the Chinook, they would insist the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. And would be wrong of course.
The fossil record is simply the result of ignoring empirical observations of how life actually propagates. Ignoring the variation they see right before their eyes while postulating something not once observed.