quote:
I would imagine that a biologist will also say "it's a bear." Let's say hypothetically that the biologist is a creationist and he does all the other things that a biologist would do to classify the specimen as a bear, but instead of using the Linnean classification system, he just says that this specimen is of the bear "kind."
I think this is a good place to start. What we have, in the case of cladistics, is a nested hiearchy that is continuous. What we have with the "created kinds" are separate trees that do not interconnect.
The creationists stop at "bear kind" but give no clear reason why it shouldn't continue back to "mammal kind". Or even "vertebrate kind" and further back to "eukaryote kind". The construction of separate, unlinked trees is arbitrary. The only reasoning, from what I have read, is the amount of evolution that creationists will allow in 4,000 years since their supposed flood or 6,000 years since their creation week. Professional taxonimsts, on the other hand, make no boundaries since none are seen in living species beyond reproductive barriers.
™ Version 4.2