"Kind"ly Creationism

Okay, here is a new thread on the Creationist definition of "kinds". My hope is that any YEC's out there can help with this, the definition as I have seen it is always slippery and changes to fit any presented evidence.Taxonomically I have seen the term fit to species (dog kind [including all breeds of dogs], human kind [modern man and some extinct variants]), family (horse kind [donkeys, horses, zebras], cat kind

(post continued)
It is truly a bullet-proof argument, provided that "kind" is never shackled with a consistant definition. I lieu of above, I propose the following defintiion for the YEC "kind"Kind (n): Any taxonomic category from species to kingdom for which there is available fossil, biochemical, embryonic, or morphological evidence of transition between members of the next lowest ranking taxonomic category.Please, any YEC's out there who have a better definition please reply. I have attempted on several occassions to pin down this definition to no avail. As I mentioned in another post, I have a correspondence with Kent Hovind that states that hermit crabs and Alaskan king crabs are a single kind, and that ALL mollusks represent a single kind (I sent him a detailed narrative of mollusk evolution based upon transitional fossils that derives modern scaphopods, bivalves, gastropods, and cephalopods from monoplacophoran ancestors with all of the transitions known). If the mollusks (a phyla) represent a kind, then it is clear that the Creator only needed to create about 33 kinds of animals. Adam was probably a lancelet or acorn worm of some type.