You keep citing this "field of grass." This reminds me of the creation "science" baraminology approach, with everything divided into separate "kinds."
But you say, "if he had theorized life springing from non-life, his theory would not have been a continuum, an evolutionary tree of life."
Why not?
In an evolutionary tree of life you have the tree, and below that the roots, then...dirt. It is a continuum from the roots up! It ignores origins. Darwin's analogy holds.
Footnote: Baraminology is based on scripture, not science.
Here is one bit of baraminology lore:
Various methods can be used to divide larger groups into smaller ones. One would be to consider Biblical evidence. Here, for example, organisms created on different days would not be related to one another. This reasoning leaves us with the following groups: 1) Day 3 organisms (land plants); 2) Day 5 organisms (sea creatures and birds); and 3) Day 6 organisms (land animals and man). Separate listings of organismal groups “after their kind” in Genesis One would indicate further division of these groups (KJV translation): 1a) “trees bearing fruit”; 1b) “herbs bearing fruit”; 1c) “grass”; 2a) “great whales”; 2b) ”every living creature” in the sea; 2c) “fowl”; 3a) “cattle”; 3b) “creeping things” on the land; 3c) “beasts of the earth”; and 3d) man. Other methods of dividing groups of organisms would include fundamental differences in genetic code, chromosomes, cell structure, metabolism, cell organization, and development. As research continues many more methods will probably be discovered. [Source]
