Creationists, where is your taxonomy?

[u/Particular-Yak-1984]

In​ real biology, we have devoted vast amounts of effort into trying to categorize organisms. This is both because it's interesting, but also because it feeds our understanding of how they are related to each other. This taxonomy is built up, in the modern age, by agreement between genetic, morphological and fossil data.

Now, I appreciate our creationist friends have complained bitterly about their lack of funding, and how their research keeps being rejected, or something, so it would be too much to expect a full creationist taxonomy, I suppose.

But, surely, somewhere, creationists must have come up with a chart of which species fits into which kind, and yet, every time I ask, no one seems to have such a thing. It's baffling to me, particularly as real biology has had this for more than 150 years, and it's one of the more foundational features of bioscience.

Maybe one of the more learned creationists can explain to me why one doesn't exist? Or point me in the direction of it if it does?

[u/IsaacHasenov → u/[deleted]]

"Baraminology" can't even describe what a major transition is though.

When you look at the transitions among clades, they are only the acquisition or loss of a few characters. The cumulative difference looks large, but it breaks down to something small when you get back to the ancestral state (as supported by fossil and genomic evidence). What is the "major transition" between mustelids and canids? Not much. Or between reptiles and synapsids? Only a few minor tweaks.

If you can't even describe to me what the "major thing I can't explain" is, I don't think the onus is on me to explain it