Question for the theist

[Esquilax]

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...ders.shtml

Biologists take for granted that the limbs and branches of the tree of life - painstakingly constructed since Linnaeus started classifying organisms 270 years ago - are basically correct. New genetic studies, the thinking goes, will only prune the twigs, perhaps shuffling around a few species here and there.

Hence the surprise when a new University of California, Berkeley, study of the largest family of salamanders produced a genetic family tree totally inconsistent with the accepted classification, which is based primarily on physical features...

So what?

For one, this is a decade old discovery, so it's surprising that it's taking so long for your pet "kinds" theory to popularize in mainstream science!

More importantly, you found a refinement of a tree based on genetic evidence that superceded the morphological observations; yes, that seems about right. Like I said, they don't produce precisely the same results, and the advent of genetic typing will refine our views of the tree of life, as it should do, but at best all you've presented here is an example of convergent evolution that adds to our understanding.

Sorry, but "uncertain," is not the same as "incorrect," and showing an example of science learning something new is not evidence for the claim you put forward. Poking holes in current science doesn't make your pet theory (colloquial definition) any more true.