Kinds are not related

Okay, lets start at the basics. This is a science forum. The fundamental requirement of science is that it is able to accurately make predictions(evolution accurately predicted and continues to predict intermediate species, a way for genes to be passed on and changed, vestigial organs, the geographic spread of species across the world, and that organisms will react to changes in their environment), what predictions does your idea of kinds make? How have these predictions borne out in reality?Edit: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent provides a good place for comparison. If you want your idea to be taken seriously, make some predictions with it(before you research what is happening preferably, you want to use this theory as your sole guide for predictions, as Darwin did when he predicted DNA). Some of your predictions might be wrong, but it will allow you to enhance your theory for additional accuracy to account for these failures.Edited by themasterdebator, : No reason given.

Okay, I probably should have clarified more. He predicted a mechanism would exist in living beings which would pass on traits from one generation to another while allowing room for change.

What facts does it fit perfectly? You have not yet provided a single iota of real world facts or links to outside sources. So far, it is entirely hypothetical and useless as a scientific idea. I can see a prediction your theory could make, specifically that when we classify animals we would see distinct large jumps in "kinds", even if we do not know where those jumps would be, those jumps would exist. The problem is we have not yet found any giant jumps. To show you evolutions prediction on the matter:"If modern species have descended from ancestral ones in this tree-like, branching manner, it should be possible to infer the true historical tree that traces their paths of descent. Phylogenies have been inferred by biologists ever since Darwin first proposed that life was united by common descent over 140 years ago. Rigorous algorithmic methodologies for inferring phylogenetic trees have been in use for over the past 50 years."29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: PhylogeneticsYour kinds theory should predict jumps in the phylogenic tree where we have a gap between one kind and another. As of yet, no biologist has found these gaps. Now, if you could find these gaps in the phylogenic tree you could go a long way toward disproving evolution. Do allot of research. Find where the gaps in the tree are. Then come back to us with how this prediction turned out. So far, you have not done anything scientific. You have just made baseless assertions without providing any observations that back them up.

Mike, the problem is that your explanation still requires evolution to take place on a fairly large and extremely rapid scale. For instance, the koala would not have been able to exist on the boat or directly after the boat landed. It requires an extremely specific diet only found in Australia. This would leave about 5000 years(An extremely short period of time for evolution, absolutely miniscule) for their descendents to hyperdrive evolve into modern day koalas.