Why do you have to write a long reply?
Because it's a long article.
Just state your disagreements. I think everyone can figure it out.
I hope so.
To start, there are some immediate problems with this section:
The Bible uses the term “kind.” The Bible’s first use of this word (Hebrew: min) is found in Genesis 1when God creates plants and animals “according to their kinds.” It is used again in Genesis 6 and 8 when God instructs Noah to take two of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal onto the ark and also in God’s command for the animals to reproduce after the Flood. A plain reading of the text infers that plants and animals were created to reproduce within the boundaries of their kind. Evidence to support this concept is clearly seen (or rather not seen) in our world today, as there are no reports of dats (dog + cat) or hows (horse + cow)!
We'll go with the Bible as a starting point here, but they're already making extra-Biblical interpretations. For instance, the Bible doesn't make any reference to any boundaries with respect to the original created life. This is a point I raised in another thread here:
Creationists: Demonstrate that wolves and dogs weren't created independently. There doesn't appear to be a way to validate whether originally created 'kinds' could or could not have interbred.
Even if we go with the idea that life is restricted to reproducing in the "boundaries of their kind", this would largely follow for any reproductive population regardless of the starting point. This is why I brought up the earlier example of three created kinds based on the three domains of life: Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukaryota. Any subsequent diversification and evolution of species in those lineages will always be either Bacteria, Archaea or Eukaryota. Organisms are always bound by their lineage. That article isn't saying anything different than we would expect from biological evolution.
So a good rule of thumb is that if two things can breed together, then they are of the same created kind. It is a bit more complicated than this, but for the time being, this is a quick measure of a “kind.”
The above is arbitrary. They would need to externally validate this assumption. I'm not aware of any rationale (other than their Bible interpretation) whereby this is the case.
For living organisms, hybridization is a key criterion. If two animals can produce a hybrid, then they are considered to be of the same kind.1However, the inability to produce offspring does not necessarily rule out that the animals are of the same kind, since this may be the result of mutations (since the Fall).
This once again reinforces the evolutionary scenario. Eukaryota might as well be considered a "kind". They are populations of Eukaryotes that can interbreed and produce offspring. And there are non-fertile boundaries that have evolved over time between other populations of Eukaryotes that prevent interbreeding.
Of course they don't want to have "kinds" at the domain level:
Baramin is commonly believed to be at the level of family and possibly order for some plants/animals (according to the common classification scheme of kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species). On rare occasions, a kind may be equivalent to the genus or species levels.
For humans they certainly won't go with family or order level of classification. Otherwise primates could be an entire created kind but they don't want us to be related in that way. This speaks to how arbitrary the "kind" concept really is.
(It's also worth noting the above contradicts many creationist definitions for "kinds" provided on this forum.)
It gets even more arbitrary...
The concept of kind is important for understanding how Noah fit all the animals on the ark. If kind is at the level of family/order, there would have been plenty of room on the ark to take two of every kind and seven of some.
This is the crux of the problem with creationist arguments about "kinds" (and likely why there are so many different definitions out there). In this specific case they are trying to force-fit biology with a mythological Bible tale. This is backwards as to how they should be approaching this: start with biology and see if this idea of "created kinds" has any biological merit then go from there.
(It's also bizarre they would need to worry about fitting animals on Noah's Ark in the first place. The entire story of Noah and the Flood has numerous physical impossibilities associated with it. Creationists often 'miracle away' these impossibilities, so why not do the same with the problem of animals fitting on the Ark?)
Skipping ahead some we get to this:
The idea of one kind changing into another can be argued against based on the fact that no such change has ever been observed.
Well sure, but the same applies under biological evolution. A Eukaryote will never become a non-Eukaryote because any descendants will always be bound by its lineage. However, that doesn't mean that said descendants can't reproduce, evolve and produce a multitude of biological forms over time.
---------------------------------------
Rather than provide any answers, this article merely raises the same questions:
1) What is the biological criteria by which created kinds could or could not have interbred with other kinds? How can creationists validate this with respect to originally created 'kinds' of organisms?
2) What is the biological criteria by which originally created kinds can be defined? Picking arbitrary Linnaean ranks doesn't tell us anything.
3) What is the biological limit for reproducing within a created kind? If the argument is that biological organisms are bound by their lineage, this is also true under biological evolution from common ancestors. But that doesn't imply a biological limit under which said lineages can evolve over time.
