It looked to me like you were expecting some sort of parallel to the evolutionary biological classification.
Nope. Just looking for a clear definition of what constitutes a "kind".
Well, one way is if they aren't capable of reproducing, then they cannot be the same kind. (but the contrapositive isn't necessarily true).
Then we have examples of salamanders
Ensatina eschscholtzii, fly's, birds
Greenish Warbler, etc of not being able to reproduce even though they look remarkably similar to each other. But that just obscures the big idea, that being unable to reproduce seperates kinds. If that is the case, then there would be 1000's of kinds even among the birds.
Like I said, though, its going to depend on how much micro-evolution is possible. If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds.
What do you mean when you say, "...how much micro-evolution is possible"? You appear to be saying that there is some arbitrary limit to micro-evolution. If so, what is that limitation?
You're traveling dangerously close to the Theory of Evolution when you say, "If it isn't possible for the two types to have evolved from a common ancestor, then they must be different kinds". Common ancestry is a central pillar of the ToE. ie. We share a common ancestor with the chimpanzees.
If we share common ancestry with the chimpanzees, then we are of the same kind?
The proverbial we... the royal we.
Cute. I wasn't aware you were royalty.
Is there anyone else who, "...know[s] that humans and chimps must be different kinds..."? Are you the only one that "knows" chimpanzees must be different kinds?
Obviously though, if an amount of genetic change is impossible then it couldn't have taken place.
How do you determine how much genetic change is impossible? You seem to suggest that nature does, but it is clear from the fossil record that speciation is still going on even after 100's of millions of years.