Thanks again Russ, but I think you are still missing the issue here
To boil this down to layman's terms, the original kinds have the ability to diversify already designed into them, but this diversification takes place only within the originally designed limits ("kind").
All this says is that the result of the testing with evidence should show an orchard, just as AiG proposes.
There should be one for creation up to the flood (when there was massive extinction to account for all those fossils eh?) followed by a winnowing back to the original kinds (one\seven pair representing each kind) followed by another orchard of variation and adaptation to the present day.
Not only that, but the basal organisms at the beginning of one orchard should be similar (identical not needed) with representatives of the same kinds as the basal organisms at the beginning of the other orchard.
Being within the kind means that genetic information was not gained.
In other words, you cannot, through chance, cross the line between change within the allotted kind and the addition of more information that would be required to form a specified change beyond the original design capabilities (racehorse breeding for example).
We can discuss these issues later, but the point here is that we are dealing with tracing the evidence backwards from the present day to see if we end up with a single tree, two trees, a small number of trees or an orchard of trees.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
