I understand this, but my concern is where does this create any conflict with the Bible. All of these classifications have been made, and that's fine, and then there is the assumption based upon them of a common ancestor.
That's like saying to me, these apes have a skull that looks like ours so we are related. They have fingers and so we are related. Well, none of those assumptions, conclusions founded in anything real because you can't show me one producing the other. The Bible, then is correct according to everything we know and see. Your assumptions are not.
The term related itself has very little meaning to me. What do we see. No elephants making pine trees. No pine trees making elephants.
What do we not see. A common ancestor that defies the Biblical kind.
Awhile back, they didn't have genetic mapping and DNA to the extent that it is now. Cladistics or phylogenetic systematics is relatively new and scientifically sound. I believe it was introduced during the mid 60s, so I would think most people were and are still taught the preceding model of evolution termed Phenetics in places ,and consequently used during debates and discussions concerning evolution. It's basically valid yet outdated information that has been replaced by newer more accurate classification as a result of new technologies and discoveries that confirms these things.
There is no getting around that elephants and pine cones are related solely because it's cellular makeup is indisputable of which such traits are passed down and shared by its antecedents.
That is certainly something we can see that establishes the relationship shared as a species whether it be pine cones or humans, or elephants, we will always be eukaryotes.
There's simply no getting around that for which cladistics has made tracing such lineages amazingly precise and accurate.
The only reason you don't see elephants giving birth to pine cones and pine cones giving birth to elephants is because a Pinecone will always be a Pinecone and an elephant will always be an elephant.
Biblical kinds would seem to suggest that kinds can procreate and be compatible for which dogs will always produce dogs with one major flaw when it comes to speciation and branching off of "kinds".
A lion will never produce a house cat, and a house cat will never ever produce a lion even though they are in the same family, they have speciated for which millions of years from now will likely look vastly different from one another both physically and genetically. A lion will always be a lion and a cat will always be a cat exactly like pine cones and elephants, cats and lions, will always be eukaryotes.
It's why those crazy notions like Ray Comfort's Crocoduck becomes so hilarious because you will never be able to produce a crocoduck. But I can definitely see a crocodile looking like a duck in the future or a duck looking like a crocodile in the future depending upon the environments they live in. Same manner T-Rex is now traced to a Chicken.