How do creationists define "kind"?

I don't define non-scientific words, so "kind" won't count as a real word.

I'm surprised you haven't heard. For every species, genus, family, subspecies, etc. they clearly define whether the species share a common ancestor, or do not. Every well known family/species/subspecies has been cataloged according to "kind" and this is all based upon peer review in the creationist scientific journals. You can look up this information in the Encyclopedia of Creation Science, or many creationist biology textbooks.

Just joking.

They don't have a clear definition of which species share a common ancestor and which one's don't. Take lions and tigers for example. They can interbreed and produce a Lion-tiger hybrid known as a Liger or a Tigon. The offspring can also interbreed with a lion, a tiger, or another liger, and produce fertile offspring. Yet the genetics of the two species are completely incompatible. A liger will grow larger than either species, and it will keep growing for its whole life, reaching an enormous size.

Are a lion and a tiger one kind as they can interbreed, or two "kinds" since the genetics are incompatible and they are very clearly two different species in the natural world? If you asked two creationists you would likely get two different answers.

Things get even more complicated for creationists with the ring species. A ring species forms a U shape that loops around, and each species can interbreed with the species near it, however, where the ends of the U shape meet the species are so different that they cannot interbreed.

Is the entire ring species one "kind"? If so, why are the two ends of the ring unable to interbreed? Or if they are two "kinds", why can each species in the continuum interbreed with the other nearby species? Are the Ensatina Salamanders on the West Coast of the US one "kind", or two or more different "kinds"?

With hominid fossils, they can't even decide whether the fossil is a human or an Ape. There are fossils in museums around the world where half of creationist authors claim it to be a humam, the other half claim it to be an Ape. All they can agree on is it isn't an intermediary between Apes and humans.

I know you were looking for a clear answer to your question, but the only true answer to your question, is that no clearly defined answer exists. There are many examples in the natural kingdom that creationists simply cannot define. They don't actually have a definition of what a "kind" is - they just sort of make it up as they go along.

"Microevolution" is a creationist term....Evolution is evolution despite its significance level. "Created kinds" are very poorly defined by the Bronze Age believing crowd. I think they, the creationists, will never accept modern biology, so why try to explain it to them.

Families. Like the dog kind (canines), or the cat kind (felines), or the bear kind (ursines). Taxonomy is an ongoing study regardless of what you believe about the ultimate origins of the animal families, so don't start pointing fingers at the families we don't have hammered out anymore than you do.

Interesting fact: Polar bears and grizzlies, generally considered totally distinct species, can interbreed and produce viable offspring.

@ northernstar: I don't accept modern biology, huh? Well, I don't see YOU rattling off trivia about various life forms on earth.

The idea that mallards evolved from maiasaurs is neither modern nor observed, and thus it does not qualify as biology, as biology is a science, and science, by definition, is observation. The idea that mallards evolved from another species of duck is modern, observed, and counts as biology. Mallards and maiasaurs are two different kinds of animals. One is a duck, the other a dinosaur.

And don't you dare start griping about what a maiasaur "really" evolved into. I picked that particular species for the alliterative value.

Whatever is convenient at the time of the discussion.

I think my inbox is filled with emails written by Truth.

Something that's shaped like itself

They have this special definition. It's made from extra-stretchy latex and chewing gum.

They secretly mean species.

That's when the two animals are close enough to do it and have kids.

It's called "blended inheritance" and proves Darwinism false!

Just like the same reason they ain't no crockoducks!

/end angry hick rant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blending_inheritance

Is not everything that is of the same "kind"? - It is.