A kind is made up of one kind of critter not two kinds.
Sorry, that's not much of a definition. It is circular, and relies on undefined terms.
The "taxonomy" behind kinds is laid out in the creationist literature. Here is an excerpt from an article by Wayne Frair, Ph.D.
As Dr. Frair has a Ph.D. in Biochemical Taxonomy from the Rutgers University he should be able to set the record straight on this issue.
quote:
Guidelines
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:
1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). However, even as explained by Wise in his 1990 oral presentation, there is not much relevant taxonomic information in the Bible. Also, ReMine’s discontinuity systematics, because it is a neutral scientific enterprise, does not include the Bible as a source of taxonomic information.
2. Hybridization. Historically Marsh and others have placed this criterion second only to the Bible; for if viable offspring could be obtained from a cross between two different forms, this would be definitive of their monobaraminic status. However, we realize today that the lack of known hybridization between two members from different populations of organisms does not necessarily by itself mean that they are unrelated. The hybridization criterion probably will retain validity, but it is being reconsidered in the light of modern genetics.
3. Ontogeny, namely the development of an individual from embryo to adult. Hartwig-Scherer (1998) suggested that comparative ontogeny followed hybridization in importance as a criterion for membership in a particular type.
4. Lineage. Is there evidence of a clear-cut lineage between and among either or both fossil and living forms.
5. Structure (morphology) and physiology (function). Structures may be macroscopic (large entities such as body organs), microscopic (small, and observed using magnification), and molecular (chemical) configurations.
6. Fossils in rock layers. These studies can include locations of fossil forms in the rock layers, and may entail considerations of Flood sediments.
7. Ecology. It is important to comprehend an organism’s niche, that is to say the region where it lives and how it interacts with the environment including other living things.
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Scripture is the most important consideration?
I bet he didn't learn that at Rutgers!
So what we have as the guidelines for the field of baraminology is adherence to scripture, and only then is attention paid to more scientific studies--but only as long as they don't conflict with scripture.
In other words, "kinds" (masquerading as science under the terms baraminology and "discontinuity systematics") is nothing but religion. Any attempts to make it into science are doomed to failure because
it has to conform to scripture while science can go where the evidence leads, and science has been leading in other directions for centuries now.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
™ Version 4.2
