You probably heard this more than once before: “Animals reproduce after their own kind” as the Bible states. A big problem I, and the entire scientific community, have with this statement is how do you define the word “kind”. In biology, the field I’m most familiar with, “kind” is a meaningless term and is only used in informal discussions. There is no harm in using the word ”kind” as saying that a particular animal, plant etc. is a special kind of animal or plant, usually highlighting a feature that is special to that plant or animal. In recent discussions I listened to or was a part of ; “kind” was more than once introduced by the creationist. When asking for a definition of the word you usually get definitions who are in themselves completely meaningless.

Shawn (VenomFangX) defined “kind” as animals (as if animals are the only living organisms on this planet) that share a common ancestor. Well, from phylogenetics we know all organisms in the world share a common ancestor so every organism in the world would be of the same kind. Obviously this is not what the creationists believes. They think 2 of each kind went on board of the Arc and through the process of Super Evolution (Creation Museum, yes they actually believe this) diversified to all species we know of today. The first problem with this is that they, in no way, can tell what animals went on the Arc, from the Bible alone you can distinguish a dove and a raven as different kinds but whatever makes them of different kinds no one can tell. I came up with a solution for this problem, and don’t pin me down on this but I think it is pretty original:
Creationists argue that no new information can be added to the genome and that the evolution we observe today is only a loss of information. I.o.w. no new genes could be added to the genome. For once it’s time the creationists put their money where their mouths are. Tell us what kinds were on the Arc and especially what species of that kind was chosen. By doing so they only have to find the species of the kind with the highest gene count and voila, you know what animals went on the Arc.

Another definition that has been used, in this case by NephilimFree (who thinks fish, birds and humans are of “different phylum of life”, plural be damned), stockings be upon him, is that animals (again with the animals) of the same kind are animals that may or may not be able to interbreed. Please think about this definition for 2 seconds……………………………………………………………………………….2 seconds done. WHAT??????? Again a very meaningless definition, this means again, every animal in the entire world would be of the same kind. A crocodile and a duck are not able to interbreed so they are of the same kind. According to Nephy, praying mantis and humans are of the same kind because he believes, no joke, they interbred to create a new alien race. And still he dares to say he has a firm grasp of reality……

What I’m getting at is this, the rules of taxonomy have been set centuries ago by Carl Linnaeus. Accededly, modern taxonomy has its flaws. The familiar ranks i.e. Domain – Kingdom – Phylum – Class – Order – Family – Genus – Species are being expanded with e.g. subphyla, subfamily, superfamily, subspecies etc. Still, every rank has a clear definition and “kind” fits nowhere in or between these ranks, especially if creationists refuse to give a clear and concise definition of the term.

When we replace “kind” for any of the ranks of modern taxonomy the statement “Animals reproduce after their own kind” would make a lot more sense. Even one I fully agree with and no biologist would ever argue otherwise. If they want to be taken seriously, they can start by abiding the rules of science and stop dodging the questions that are justly asked by people that do.

Cheers,
DutchLiam84