I think it is obvious to all who are familiar with the evolution vs creation debate that there is a difference in opinions as to what exactly best defines a "kind".
Well, not really; nobody has yet come up with a userful definiton of a "kind". Nothing (yet) defines a "kind" at all.
My definition is that of a species bound by the same DNA code barrier.
Circular reasoning. And not a useful defintiion. A useful,meaningful defintiion allows anyone to examine an arbitrary organism and assign it to a kind, or to examin any two arbitrary organisms and decide if they are the same or different kinds. Since there is no known "DNA coide barrier", your defnition is useless.
Oh, and your reference is using circular reasoning too.
Finally, evolution of new species has often been observed.
As for the "DNA confinement" - that was merely another term for "the DNA code barrier" And you'll find that evidence here:
Not much evidence there, lots of assertions. "No new genetic material can be added" is known to be false. "Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature" is an unsupported assertion. The sugar beet example shows that
a particular trait has a limit in
one particular process, but does not show that
all or even
manytraits have limits, or that
that particular trait could not be changed farther by another process. "When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease" is another unsupported (and falsified by observations) assertion. "No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material" is another false statement; information is added by mutations no matter which if the many definitions of information you use (and I notice that your source carefully does
not say which definition of information he is using). "For example, a microbe would need to somehow acquire enough information through millions of errorless mutations that added to its DNA, which would enable it to become a fish" betrays a total lack of understanding of evolution;
populations evolve, not
individuals, so all that is needed at each step is
one beneficial mutation in
one individual organism, while thousands of similar organisms die (or, more corectly, fail to reproduce) from detrimental mutations. I could write thousands of words off the top of my head on the errors on that short page ... you should look for a more trustworthy source.
™ Version 4.2
