Yet, darwinian evolution expects us to buy that not only can information be added to a species that makes it a completely different kind of animalCan you give me an example of this? Humans aren't a very good example; we do not differ very much from chimpanzees, either in a genetic sense or in a morphological sense. It's easy to find ants that are more different from each other than humans are from chimps, and yet I'm sure you have no trouble saying that all ants are of the same "kind".
What does nature use as the boundary between different "kinds"? How can we define it objectively? I am not trying to play "gotcha", here: I really am trying to understand what you mean. Clearly, "primates" are not a "kind", in your estimation, let alone "mammals", "vertebrates", "animals", or "eukaryotes". You said something about "families" before, but surely these are artificial definitions made for human convenience, and not natural boundaries.
In layman's terms, a kind is that which produces offspring with itself. Regardless of the genetic similarities between a human and a chimp (which is a good example), you aren't going to have a human (this is gross) having sex with a chimp and have a huepansee. That is my definition of "kind". You may end up with a similar ancestor between a zebra and horse, possibly. Another example would be the bird-dinosaur theory. It is debated whether dinos were warm or cold blooded, which is an issue in itself, but lung structure of birds apparently negates the theory anyway. You aren't going to have lizards mating with birds and coming up with a transitional species.