This article is simply one of the two brochures on Creation that were released a few years ago. Like most things published by the WTS on this topic, it is a breathtakingly misleading mixture of snippets of quotes taken out of context and vague and/or just plain erroneous commentary on them. Here's a great example:
For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” 30 The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change
If you read this article in the full, as is easy to do online, you will quickly see that Rose's and Bapteste's comments are made specifically about single-celled organisms. In fact, the article later says that when it comes to multi-cellular, more complex life forms (like cats and rats and elephants--and humans), the multi-branching Tree of Life is still the best way to picture relationships. So why can these two scientists make such seemingly sweeping statements about unicellular life? Because the vast, vast majority of life on this planet is unicellular. Species visible to the human eye are an anomaly, statistically speaking.
Moreover, a close reading of this article actually suggests something exactly opposite to the Genesis account. Rather than implying that various "kinds" (whatever the hell that means) are not related at all, due to separate origins, scientists are finding that unicellular life is often related both vertically and horizontally--that rather than being a Tree of Life, it's more like a tangled Vine of Life, due to various weird strategies like horizontal gene transfer. In fact, in some odd cases, the vine metaphor even extends to multicellular organisms. For instance, we all carry around with us ancient viral DNA.
This grossly inaccurate WTS article is one of the things that really sealed my exit. I took the time to read some (admittedly not all, but enough) of the sources and was shocked by how badly the quotes were taken out of context and the basic ideas of the original material misrepresented.