Hi Guys
The term "kinds" is not quite as plastic as you try to make out. In the discussion of "what is a Kind?" it was pointed out that there are certain criteria that suggest whether or not two creatures are from the same kind or not. The reason why we can not pin down the exact ancestor is because they no longer exist, and we cannot know what sort of potential for variation these original creatures had. So in some cases our baramins may be too narrow. In some cases we may have mistaken some superficial similarity for true similarity. Baraminology is a field that still needs a lot more research, however the results that are coming from this area are good. In future as more progress is made I hope that the picture of this classification system becomes clearer.
However, to be able to place every creature in a distinct kind is not necessary for creation apologetics. What we don't see is
britanican writes:
Every living thing is part of a great branching tree, and if we could line up all the intermediaries between
In fact this is a far too simple explanation even for most modern evolutionists (plenty of articles around in science magazines about the Tree of Life during the last few years).
Also
coyote writes:
But you've only served to make my point: there is no definition of "kind" that can be used in the manner that scientists use terms.
The word "kind" or "baramin" can be used in scientific endeavours. Just because organisms are labeled in the classification system doesn't mean that this is concrete. As with other classification systems organisms may be renamed and relocated depending on new evidence. This is the same with the kind classification system, it is open to revision. It deals with the past and so it is to be expected that we will not always be 100% accurate in our classification of particular organisms. Does this mean that we should throw out the entire classification system? No, otherwise you would have to throw out the linnean system as well because that is also open to revision. The point is that the "kind" or "Baramin" classification system is workable as explained in the "what is a Kind?" thread. It is open to revision, and this is to be expected when dealing with the past, but the overall structure and aim is secure.
I think it is also important to note that especially the linnean system is used to organise organisms by putting labels on animals based on similarities. It doesn't make any direct claims about ancestry. I think that is where for the evolutionists cladistics comes in.