Creationists Cannot Define "Kind".

Linnaean classification can be implemented on either separately created living things or evolved creatures, so I don't see any problem with accepting Big L.'s arrangement of things. Practically taxonomy is defined by him, and continued to be so today. Linnaeus was the man who gave humanity the notion of nested hierarchy in nature, the notion that creatures have various degrees of difference which is best portrayed in a tree (phylogeny) or a Venn diagram. This notion was later elaborated by Buffon, Cuvier, Owen, and Darwin. Nested hierarchy was partly responsible in undermining the 'separateness' of created kinds.Anyway, I have said this sevral times here: Linnaeus considered great apes to be in the same genus as humans. He named the chimpanzee Homo troglodytes and the orangutan Homo silvestris. In that way his position is even more extreme than the current classification which set chimps in a separate genus, and orangutans in a different family, from humans. What do you think?

Taxonomy is creationists' soft weak underbelly isn't it? It was Linnaeus who paved the way to evolution by showing that some critters are more alike than others. What better way to accommodate it than evolution?Pity not many resident creationists share their views on this thread!

So how many kinds are there in Quetzal's post (page 1)? One, two, or three kinds?Also, should we try and do a highly unethical cross-breeding experiment to prove that humans and chimps are of a different kind like all creationists say?