So, in your opinion, no species is related to any other species, and any similarities are purely coincidental?
Just the opposite! I see 25% hard genetic similarities among every living thing, like soil. Actually, I suspect on the animal side of the lawn the similarities will be greater, more like 50% but that's just a guess. It would look like a rise in the soil.
The "grass blade" for a daffodil is on the same lawn as the chimpanzee and the human. The chimpanzee is a tad longer than the human. And there might be a blade with a fork or two where creatures have differentiated to adapt to their environment (like the finches.)
If all the sequences are maintained in drawing it, then to me, the end result will look like a "lawn."
It's certainly possible to look out at the world of living things and to see only discrete, stand-alone creatures, utterly unrelated. That's exactly what we do see the very first time we open our eyes and look around. But one of the glories of the human mind is that when we look long enough and hard enough, we have the capacity to see similarities and patterns. Ultimately we learn to use the highly refined technique of inductive reasoning, which can lead us to useful theories about the world in which we live -- such as evolution. That's when the Tree of Life takes shape. And then, goodbye lawn.
Deductive and Inductive Thinking.
Evolutionists ascribe all similarities to evolution, but this is not a logical assumption. Similarities can be the result also of intelligent design. An intelligent designer will not recreate the wheel, instead he will reuse it in other creations and modify it as needed. For example the wheel of a cart can be modified into a gear by adding teeth to it. In the same way the same functions can be provided to different species by modifying the DNA to fit the functions of another species.
So the question is how to choose from the two interpretations? Since evolution claims these modifications arise out of descent from other species and ID claims the opposite one must look to see if the modifications clearly follow a line of descent or not. They do not invariably do so. There are numerous exceptions to the descent hypothesis and evolutionists call it 'convergence'. That they have a word for this shows that it is a fact which they could not brush away. This 'convergence' cannot be considered as due to descent as evolutionists themselves admit. What they do not admit is that it shows the theory of intelligent design to be correct.