Darwin and change of kinds

Ray has claimed in his movie, Evolution vs God, that Darwin talked about a "change of kinds".  In his interview with TBN, he admits that Darwin never talked about a "change of kinds", but he talked about a change of families.  It would be nice if Ray would just quote Darwin on this, but then again if Ray was going to do that, he would have released unedited sources or at least less choppy interviews.

While trying to find the source myself, I stumbled across this gem.

Such expressions as that famous one of Linnaeus, and which we often meet with in a more or less concealed form, that the characters do not make the genus, but that the genus gives the characters, seem to imply that something more is included in our classification, than mere resemblance. I believe that something more is included; and that propinquity of descent,--the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings,--is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification, which is partially revealed to us by our classifications.

Darwin postulates that sea otters and honey badgers do not simply look similar, but look similar, because they descended from a common ancestor.   Most evolutionists and creationists agree on that one.  However why cannot the similarities between bears, dogs, and sea otters be explained by common descent rather than a common designer?  Why stop at sea otters and honey badgers?

We already agree that the similarities in this image are not merely superficial.