Evolution For Whatever, etc...

Wouldn't we have to know what a "kind" is, first? Can you tell us how we'd know if two animals are from the same kind, or different kinds?

Those may be examples but they hardly explain what it is that makes you think that they're different kinds. How do you come to know that lions and tigers are the same kind, but fish and birds are different? (Haven't you heard of flying fish?)That's basically what I'm asking, and what you haven't really answered: what's a kind? How do you know if two animals are in the same kind or different kinds? I don't see how you can know that if you don't even know what a kind is.

Hard? If you were able to do it, you'd be the first that I'm aware of. If you can find a useful definition, or make one up, I'll literally PayPal you $5. Seriously! If you can provide a functional definition of "kind" - one that allows me to determine if two arbitrary animals are in the same kind - then five US dollars are yours. And unlike Kent Hovind and his little bet I actually have the money. I don't feel that there's anything obvious about kinds, because I don't know what they are. As far as I know, there's only one kind, and we're all species within that kind: life.

Hrm, nice attempt, but the definition is non-functional. For instance what is "visual design information", and how is it classified and measured?Your definition is also self-contradictory. Visual design criteria and genetic evidence don't always agree, so which is to be taken as more important? Canis lupis and Thylacinus cynocephalus are strikingly similar visually but vastly different genetically. Are they in the same kind, or not?The problem for this definition ultimately is that the genetic evidence for almost all organisms points to common descent. By your own definition all living things are in the same "kind", so you've essentially proven evolution, not creation, with this definition.No $5 for you, I'm afraid. Your definition is nonfunctional and contradictory. What about my face allows me to subdue the Earth? And what about the human face is unique, exactly? Have you ever seen young chimpanzees or ourangutans at the zoo? Very human-looking indeed.There's just not that much difference in between organisms. That's why it's so easy to construct evolutionary trees, and so hard to find these supposed barriers that creationists "just know" are there.

Ok, so then the genetic evidence trumps the visual evidence. So what about humans and chimpanzees? Vaguely similar visual forms, very similar genetics. Same kind, right? I don't think similar forms is an argument for the same designer. I mean, Dean Kamen is the designer both of the kidney dialysis machine and the Segway scooter. Do they seem similar to you?On the other hand, most helicopters look more or less the same; yet many of them are designed by very different designers. Apparently similarity of design is not a good predictor of a shared designer.

Well, one of the differences they found was that one of our chromosomes appears to be a fusion of two chromosomes apes possess. Is that a difference you feel is "intelligently designed"? Because it seems rather random and evolved to me, and evidence that we share a common ancestor.Now, the question is, are you still using your definition? Because it doesn't sound like you are. If you're concluding that dolphins and whales are from the same kind because they're within some kind of genetic similarity threshhold, then you have to conclude that humans and apes are, because we're within the same threshhold (I think. Not sure.)