Is There Any Genetic Or Morphological Criterion For "Kind"?

What a long word salad to try and hand wave the fact that there's no definition of "kind" away.
The following sentence shows that the term "kind", along with all other sciency-sounding terms used in the pseudoscience of creationism is always pseudoscience.

quote:

---

"kinds", on the other hand, suggest that biological diversity had a much more complex starting point;.
  —Kaichos Man

---

The empirical evidence indicate the opposite.We've got empirical evidence that the first cellular life forms (as we know it) were prokaryotic cells. We've got them in the form of fossils in the lowest and oldest rocks containing cellular fossils, indicating that the most complex form of life existed as prokaryotic unicellular organisms at that stage. No evidence of more complex life then.What empirical evidence do you have that "biological diversity had a more complex starting point"? Just a whole variety of holy books and wishful thinking?Edited by Pressie, : Changed a sentenceEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Does that include Stephen Jay Gould's Darwinian Fundies
  —Kaichos Man

---

Are you referring to the same Stephen Jay Gould who was, according to : Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A passionate advocate of evolutionary theory, Gould wrote prolifically on the subject, trying to communicate his understanding of contemporary evolutionary biology to a wide audience.
  —Wiki

---

and also

quote:

---

...devoted considerable time to fighting against creationism (and the related constructs Creation science and Intelligent design). Most notably, Gould provided expert testimony against the equal-time creationism law in McLean v. Arkansas.
  —Wiki

---

?