Speciation is fine. These changes will never accumulate to form a new " kind" though. That type of accumulation has never been seen heck these scientists are amazed at seeing a finch turn to another finch. Do you see the jump from an observation to an assumption here?
Since nobody has ever given, a coherent definition of the term 'kind', that isn't an objection at all.
Yes, the finch becomes another species of finch. And primates become other species of primates. And mammals become other species of mammals.
Evolution arises from modifications of what is already there through changes over many generations not by large scale changes all at once.
A good analogy has to do with languages. Languages change over time, usually very small changes over the course of, say, a decade or two. Every generation can easily understand both the previous generation and the following generation. So, in the course of, say, a century, there is no change in the 'kind' of the language.
But, if you look at what happens over the course of centuries, languages can change by very large amounts. I would challenge you to read anything written in Old English without training. And, over the course of thousands of years, languages *do* change 'kinds': French and Spanish are, in any reasonable sense, different 'kinds' of languages. But they both developed from Latin over the course of the last couple thousand years.
You are complaining that we see the small-scale changes in finches that are expected under evolution and that are analogous to the small scale changes in languages over the course of a year. But you then claim that it is impossible for large scale changes to occur like those between Latin and French because such changes haven't been seen in very recent studies. In the case of evolution, large scale changes are accumulations of these small scale changes over the course of thousands of generations. That means we don't see them in a mere century. But we *do* see them in the fossil record.
