I joined this discussion late, so apologies if this has already been covered somewhere in the discussion. I just wanted to respond to your following statement because it raises a point I always find curious.
It is clearly stated that many bird species were created, not just one wild and one domestic.
What do you mean by "birds" when you say "many bird species were created". Or, indeed, what do you mean when you talk about "primates" or "reptiles" or "fish" or "rodents" or "molluscs" or "mammals", etc? What do those group words mean if you don't think they signify a form of relationship? If you think that all species or "kinds" were created entirely independently, then presumably a penguin is not related in any way to an ostrich. So what does it mean to classify either of them as a "bird"? Is a penguin not more similar to a seal than it is to an ostrich or a robin?
So will you now be consistent and always stick to using the above group definitions, rather than using words such as "birds" which are meaningless if you really believe that a robin is no more related to an ostrich or a penquin than it is to a fly or a bat?