Even if your notion of a kind were biologically feasible, it is not Biblical. The Bible never says that all members of a kind can interbreed; you are adding that into the Biblical doctrine. Why do you follow the doctrines of men like this?
However, your notion is not biologically feasible. How about animals that mate and do not reproduce, are they the same kind? How about ring species, where perhaps A will mate with B, and B will mate with C, but A does not mate with C, are A and C the same kind? If all the offspring are stillborn, does that count as being the same kind? What if they all die before reaching sexual maturity? What if they reach maturity but are sexually infertile? Pandas don't interbreed with any other bear. Does that mean Pandas are of a different kind? There are many mosquito species that don't interbreed, does that mean there is more than one kind of mosquito?
So, since your doctrine is not Biblical, and is counter to biology, why do you hold on to it?
What I said IS Biblical and NOT counter to biology! The Bible does not say that every individual plant and animal was created directly by God......only basic kinds. Within each kind
a great variety could develop over thousands of years. For example, many different types of cats could develop within the cat family, or different dogs in the dog family, or different humans within the human family.
It's funny how you evolutionists want us to accept or believe that with "millions of years of time" these monstrous, galactical changes have take place but when we say that over a period of hundreds perhaps thousands of year certain "varieties" within a kind could be produced....you call us "stupid" and "fairytale believers!"
Genesis chapter one says that each basic kind could produce offspring only “according to its kind.” So while the varieties within a kind
could mate and produce offspring, that would
not be true outside the kind. One kind could not mate and produce offspring with another kind. Nor could one kind ever change into another kind. That would be true no matter how long a time was involved. Fish would forever stay fish, birds forever birds, land animals forever land animals, and humans forever humans.
If evolution is true, the evidence should support a gradual changing of one kind of living thing into another kind. There must be at least some evidence of this in living things, in the fossil record, and even in laboratory and field experiments.
But if the Bible is true, then we should not find any changing of one Genesis kind into another. There should be great variety within basic kinds, but unbridgeable gaps between basic kinds. This should be true in living things and in the fossil record. It should also be impossible for experiments to bridge these gaps between basic kinds.
If evolution is true, there should be evidence of the beginnings of new structures in living things. There should have been an abundance of developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other organs and bones. This should be true in the fossil record and even in some living things today. At the very least there should be some partially developed structures somewhere!
Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average!
Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”
Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed .*.*. Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”
Much the same observation is made in Science magazine: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average].”
So, then, what is inherited by living things is not the possibility of continued change but instead (1)*stability and (2)*limited ranges of variation.
The truth is as Professor John Moore declared: “Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion .*.*. that gene mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth
Therefore, there are gaping holes in the evidence for evolution. And these “gaping holes” have widened with the passing of time. Evidence has poured in about heredity, cell structure, DNA, the complexity of living things, breeding experiments, as well as the fossil record. From all this evidence it has become more and more obvious to
impartial, honest observers that the facts overwhelmingly support creation, not evolution.
