This might help to clarify the unclarifiable...
quote:
The creationist position is basically that genetic changes can occur, even to the point of speciation or possibly even higher order changes, but changes never occur such that one kind of animal becomes another kind.
What is a kind, you might ask? Good question. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a good answer. "Kind" is not a scientific concept used by any scientists involved in the life sciences. The term comes from the biblical story of Genesis where God creates the different kinds of animals. Creationists don't seem to be able to define their own term. There are some weak attempts to do so but in general "kind" seems to mean whatever the creationist using the term at the time wants it to mean.
Creationists envision some magic line that can not be crossed in terms of genetic change. Unsurprisingly, however, no one can identify unambiguously where this line is nor is there any scientific support for the idea that it even exists. Yet in any discussion with creationists about evolution, it is almost certain the term kind will pop up. Because evolutionary change is undeniable and speciation has been directly observed, creationists have to use a different definition of microevolution and macroevolution than is used by evolutionary scientists. They consider microevolution to be changes that don't result in a change of kind whereas macroevolution would be changes resulting in a different kind.
-
source: Macro vs. Micro-Evolution and Their Definitions
And I hope nobody moans that those details came from an athiest oriented website. Not my fault that athiests are better at analysing creationist nonsense than creationists are.
™ Version 4.2
