Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Evolutionary theory is quite consistent with the fact that 'species' is hard to define. Two groups of organisms which descended from a common ancestor could be anywhere on a range of similarity or difference to one another; however, they would share certain similarity based on common descent. The concept of 'species' isn't really built into evo ...[text shortened]... ther traits? That isn't explained by common design, but it is explained by evolutionary theory.
I don't really get the point of your post, but here goes:
You get Classes (mammals, reptiles, insects, etc) and then kinds within those Classes (felines, canines and so forth < which still need research and proper classification). While these are quite definitive (any child can tell you the difference between a cat and dog - even a tiger is a big kitty) they can variate very much within their kind, but not beyond (the various kinds of dogs - but never to anything but another type of dog).
All creatures have several common traits (DNA, cells, mitochondria, ATP motors, etc). I cannot clearly define kinds (because, tragically, most people are so trumped up by evolution that little research has been put into the field, but hopefully, people will wake up to the idea and redirect the funding and research), however, every kind created was single and complete - it wasn't a paint-by-number random combination creature that wouldn't function practically (your milk-producing, scaled invertebrate with insect wings - a cheesy alien flick?). Why should a creator make a junk creature as you've so vividly postulated? To blur the line between kinds more? Or must a Creator equally share various genetic and biological traits between the creatures?
Emphasis mixed with consistency makes asthetic beauty - think of music and paintings - so too with nature (emphasis on facial hair in your case, perhaps 😉 I think nature's various creatures, their common traits mixed with uniqueness can be easily explained by common design...