Evolution in pieces.

Don't be too magnanimous, MrJack.Species by definition should be very imprecise designations, since the process of Darwinian evolution tinkers with ancestral forms to create new ones. Where it becomes its own form is a purely arbitrary distinction, and hot debate is what we expect from any attempt to make clear demarcations.Kinds, on the other hand, were supposedly created separately. There should be no problem whatsoever differentiating between them.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Sure, they need not be easily defined, but it sure would make their story a lot more believable if they were. If each 'kind' had its own genetic code, for example, that would be clear evidence in favor of kinds and very bad news for Darwinian evolution.Either way the creationists have nothing going for them. If 'kinds' correspond to species, then there is clear evidence for evolution of new species from old ones. If 'kinds' include a great variety of animals (like the feline family, for example), then they're allowing for such an incredible amount of variation within kinds that they may as well admit that all forms could have evolved from common ancestors.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall