However, Creationists often make it sound like any bird could micro-evolve any other bird because “birds” are a “kind” of animal. However, the same person will then fail to group all “mammals” as a “kind,” saying things like dogs can’t become cats (and monkeys can’t become people).

Sometimes (when convenient), “kind” seems to refer to entire taxonomic Classes of organisms. Other times, it is mysteriously restricted to taxonomic Families. Still other times, it seems to limit change to the Genus or Species level. But the difference is never explained.

So, can any creationist out there provide a clear, non-shifting, usable definition of the word “kind” that we could use in a serious debate about evolution? One that isn’t subjective and won’t change from discussion to discussion?

Thanks!
@gertystorrud:

“‘kind’=the specific, individual species. Period.”

So, Noah did take a pair of every *species* of animal on the ark, then?

Out of curiosity, does this include species like the various monotremes which only exist in Australia and never in the Middle East and, if a “kind” of animal all their own, could not have micro-evolved from any other “kind” of animal that would have been on the ark?

How did Noah get them? And how did he get them back to Australia (and only Australia) after the flood?
@ Israel Lover:
“A person is a kind, black or white does not matter.
A cat is a kind, Panther or house cat does not matter.”

This is EXACTLY what I am taking about. People are a species (Homo sapiens sapiens).

“Cats” are a Family (Felidae).

WHY does “kind” mean Species for humans and Family for cats? Why isn’t the “kind” for man Hominidae?

What is the *specific, distinguishing* thing that lumps ALL feline and feline-like things in a big pool, but specifically excludes humans from other related primates?