Au contraire, mon ami. I think you need to take another look at those definitions. It appears clear to me that the key word in all of the above is "discontinuity". The creationists (sorry, baraminologists
) are flat out denying common ancestry
except within a particular holobaramin. IOW, members of the "cat holobaramin" can't by definition have shared a common ancestry with the "dog holobaramin", nor can either have shared a remote common ancestor with any other carnivore holobaramin. The "ape holobaramin" can't share a common ancestor with the "human holobaramin". And sure as taxes no mammal can possibly have shared a common ancestor with an amphibian, reptile, fish, etc. Even the definition of apobaramin indicates that bats are not mammals.
I guess all those biologists and cladists working from molecular phylogenies better get real jobs, since they are obviously completely wrong.
™ Version 4.2
