Yes, because breeds actually has a well-establish meaning. If I were to ask you what a "breed" of dog is, you could give me a pretty decent definition, and at least make it clear what you're talking about.
I thought I did. Did I not say all Felidae were one Kind? All Canidae? All suidae? How much clearer do you need it to be?
Yeah, except that "kind" isn't anywhere near as narrowly defined as "breed".
neither are your Kindom, Phyla and domains - while ignoring the first life had to be a species unto itself.
Say what you will about the problems of defining a species at the dawn of life, but the term at least has a fairly clear meaning in some regards. The term itself is defined, the problem is that in some cases, its meaning becomes rather problematic - for example, the discussion of species that can interbreed becomes rather problematic when talking about eukaryotes which do not reproduce sexually. But kind is simply undefined. It's not simply a matter of "we're trying to define it but nature doesn't fit into nice neat boxes the way we'd like it to".
Have you ever seen two Kinds reproduce??? Then what are you complaining about - Have you ever seen anything above Kind reproduce with another anything or even crossed them in the lab? Then what are you complaining about a scientific definition that has fit all experimental data????
See, the problem here is that when scientists talk about species, they typically use it in a way it makes sense. As the wikipedia article says: A species is often defined as the largest group of
organisms capable of
interbreeding and
producing fertile offspring.
Kind after Kind doesn't make sense to you even though we have never observed anything else? I see now why you are confused about variation and different breeds of the same Kinds.
I see now why in the fossil record you confuse different breeds of the same animal as a separate species. If we had never seen a living dog you would be trying to tell me about how they were different species and proved your evolutionary tree. Too bad they ain't extinct huh.
It's understandable given that they can go
from this and
this to
this in one generation. So it is not surprising in the fossil record you claim links when those links are nothing but breeds of the same exact Kind. But of course that means you first have to accept science and how we know reproduction works - not how people want it to be.
Beyond that line there's genetic comparisons, the fossil record, endogenous retroviruses, comparative anatomy... Yes, if you ignore all of the evidence, then there's no evidence.
But coming back to "kinds", you just described three families. So does kind mean "family"? Because I've heard others describe it as far more analogous to species. You see my problem here?
The genetic evidence only can be dated to a few hundred years - since you have no DNA samples of anything old. To claim you can tell that a gene has been in the tree for millions of years is pure wishful thinking. You do understand that even the finding of soft tissue contradicts your claims of age do you not? The fossil record shows nothing but Kind after Kind - all T-Rex are T-Rex from the first to the last.
The fossil record shows why they have incorrectly classified 2 of every 3 fossils found.
But the science suddenly isn't good enough anymore?
Sure I see your problem -
species problem - so you should see ours as well. All cats - no matter what species you care to place them in are of one Kind. We know this because Lions and Tigers can mate and give birth to fertile offspring. Despite the fact science lists them as separate species - even if breeding and producing fertile offspring is the prime definition of species. So you see my problem????
So we got to use your definition when science clearly can't even get it right for two creatures capable of breeding and producing fertile offspring???
