There is no different "kind" of evolution.
"This kind of evolution requires transference between major animal groups."
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I'm guessing you are trying to talk about one "kind" of animal changing into another "kind" of animal, and suggesting this is some other form of evolution than the changes between "kinds".
This is typical creationist silliness based on profoundly wrong conceptions of evolution.
First, the "kinds" or "groups" of animals are a human creation. We categorize and label. The animals just are. There is nothing magical about where we draw the lines between different groups. Especially when talking about species in the fossil record. The lines reflect what fossils happen to have been preserved and discovered rather than any inherent divisions in "animal groups" over time.
Second, creationists talk as if evolution suggests that at some point an animal gave birth to a child that was a different species. Of course it proposes no such thing.
Every generation was very much like the generation before it. Speciation is the result of the aggregate total of minor changes over long periods of time and many generations, and where people draw the lines between species.
We are looking at intermittent records of very long very gradual changes. When we decide those changes are significant enough we label something a new species. However the actual changes were always gradual and usually insignificant between any two adjacent generations.
All the fossil records indicate fully formed life forms.
Currently to date zero transitional fossils have been uncovered
-
that’s
one
great
big
ZERO!
Also ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?
Or how about Darwin’s quote about thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils in order to support his theory?