Links to resources

mtDNA and the nuclear genome

Definition of 'Kinds'

'Kind' in Evolution and Creationism

It should be obvious that if you do not agree on the definition of a word, you cannot use that word in any meaningful conversation.

In creationism the word ’Kind’ means ’The groups of animals created during the creation week’.
In evolution ’Kind’ has no specific definition. The word can be used as it pleases the user.
However, not as in the creationist definition, as the creation is not part of the theory of evolution.

This fact results in an often-heard contradiction.
When a creationist wants a scientist to give an example of the evolution of a new kind, it is actually a nonsense question. The creationist is using a word that has a very specific definition under the assumption of creation, but that definition makes no sense under the assumption of evolution. Still the creationist asks the scientist to use the definition from creationism when answering the question.

The best way for the scientist to respond would probably be to ask “How do you define ‘Kind’”.
It will then be clear that the creationist is in severe trouble.
He cannot use the creationist definition, as the scientist can simply dismiss it as irrelevant to the theory of evolution.
But what other definition does a creationist have? He could come up with a few examples: dogs and cats are different kinds - but according to evolution dogs didn’t decent from cats or vice versa, so that doesn’t help much.

The only meaning the question can have is something fluffy like ‘major anatomical transitions’. But if these transitions are of the magnitude necessary to turn a dog into a cat, or to produce a new organ, no scientist have ever postulated that this can happen fast enough to be visible.